A Tutorial on UAVs for Wireless Networks:

Applications, Challenges, and Open Problems

Mohammad Mozaffari1 , Walid Saad1 , Mehdi Bennis2 , Young-Han Nam3 , and Mérouane Debbah4
1
Wireless@VT, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Virginia Tech, VA, USA, Emails:{mmozaff,walids}@vt.edu.
2
CWC - Centre for Wireless Communications, University of Oulu, Finland, Email: bennis@ee.oulu.fi.
3
Standards & 5G Mobility Innovations Lab, Samsung Research America, Richardson, TX, Email: younghan.n@samsung.com.
4
Mathematical and Algorithmic Sciences Lab, Huawei France R & D, Paris, France, and CentraleSupelec,
Universite Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France, Email: merouane.debbah@huawei.com.
arXiv:1803.00680v2 [cs.IT] 17 Mar 2019

Abstract— The use of flying platforms such as unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), popularly known as drones, is rapidly growing.
In particular, with their inherent attributes such as mobility,
flexibility, and adaptive altitude, UAVs admit several key potential
applications in wireless systems. On the one hand, UAVs can
be used as aerial base stations to enhance coverage, capacity,
reliability, and energy efficiency of wireless networks. On the
other hand, UAVs can operate as flying mobile terminals within
a cellular network. Such cellular-connected UAVs can enable
several applications ranging from real-time video streaming to
item delivery. In this paper, a comprehensive tutorial on the
potential benefits and applications of UAVs in wireless commu-
nications is presented. Moreover, the important challenges and
the fundamental tradeoffs in UAV-enabled wireless networks are
thoroughly investigated. In particular, the key UAV challenges
such as three-dimensional deployment, performance analysis,
channel modeling, and energy efficiency are explored along
with representative results. Then, open problems and potential
research directions pertaining to UAV communications are intro-
duced. Finally, various analytical frameworks and mathematical
tools such as optimization theory, machine learning, stochastic
geometry, transport theory, and game theory are described. The
use of such tools for addressing unique UAV problems is also
presented. In a nutshell, this tutorial provides key guidelines
on how to analyze, optimize, and design UAV-based wireless
communication systems.
I. I NTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ON UAV S
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as
drones, have been the subject of concerted research over the
past few years [1]–[5], owing to their autonomy, flexibility,
and broad range of application domains. Indeed, UAVs have
been considered as enablers of various applications that in-
clude military, surveillance and monitoring, telecommunica-
tions, delivery of medical supplies, and rescue operations [1],
[3], and [6]–[17]. However, such conventional UAV-centric
research has typically focused on issues of navigation, control,
and autonomy, as the motivating applications were typically
robotics or military oriented. In contrast, the communication
challenges of UAVs have typically been either neglected or
considered as part of the control and autonomy components.
A. Motivation
The unprecedented recent advances in drone technology
make it possible to widely deploy UAVs, such as drones, small
aircrafts, balloons, and airships for wireless communication
purposes [9], [18]–[21]. In particular, if properly deployed
and operated, UAVs can provide reliable and cost-effective
wireless communication solutions for a variety of real-world
scenarios. On the one hand, drones can be used as aerial
base stations (BSs) that can deliver reliable, cost-effective,
and on-demand wireless communications to desired areas. On
the other hand, drones can function as aerial user equipments
(UEs), known as cellular-connected UAVs, in coexistence
with ground users (e.g., delivery or surveillance drones). This
exciting new avenue for the use of UAVs warrants a rethinking
of the research challenges with wireless communications and
networking being the primary focus, as opposed to control and
navigation.
In particular, when UAVs are used as flying, aerial base
stations, they can support the connectivity of existing ter-
restrial wireless networks such as cellular and broadband
networks. Compared to conventional, terrestrial base stations,
the advantage of using UAVs as flying base stations is their
ability to adjust their altitude, avoid obstacles, and enhance the
likelihood of establishing line-of-sight (LoS) communication
links to ground users (see Tables III and IV for a detailed
comparison between UAVs and ground BSs). Indeed, owing to
their inherent attributes such as mobility, flexibility, and adap-
tive altitude, UAV base stations can effectively complement
existing cellular systems by providing additional capacity to
hotspot areas and by delivering network coverage in hard to
reach rural areas. Another important application of UAVs is
in Internet of Things (IoT) scenarios [22]–[26] whose devices
often have small transmit power and may not be able to
communicate over a long range. UAVs can also serve as
wireless relays for improving connectivity and coverage of
ground wireless devices and can also be used for surveillance
scenarios, a key use case for the IoT. Last, but not least,
in regions or countries where building a complete cellular
infrastructure is expensive, deploying UAVs becomes highly
beneficial as it removes the need for expensive towers and
infrastructure deployment.
From an industry perspective, key real-world example of
recent projects that employ drones for wireless connectivity
includes Google’s Loon project. Within the scope of these
practical deployments, UAVs are being used to deliver In-
ternet access to developing countries and provide airborne
global Internet connectivity. Moreover, Qualcomm and AT&T
are planning to deploy UAVs for enabling wide-scale wire-
less communications in the upcoming fifth generation (5G)
wireless networks [27]. Meanwhile, Amazon Prime Air and
Google’s Project Wing [28] initiatives are prominent examples
of use cases for cellular-connected UAVs.
Despite such promising opportunities for drones, one must
address a number of technical challenges in order to effec-
tively use them for each specific networking application. For
instance, while using drone-BS, the key design considerations
include performance characterization, optimal 3D deployment
of drones, wireless and computational resource allocation,
flight time and trajectory optimization, and network planning.
Meanwhile, in the drone-UE scenario, handover management,
channel modeling, low-latency control, 3D localization, and
interference management are among the main challenges.
B. UAV Classification
Naturally, depending on the application and goals, one needs
to use an appropriate type of UAV that can meet various
requirements imposed by the desired quality-of-service (QoS),
the nature of the environment, and federal regulations. In fact,
to properly use UAVs for any specific wireless networking
application, several factors such as the UAVs’ capabilities and
their flying altitudes must be taken into account. In general,
UAVs can be categorized, based on their altitudes, into high
altitude platforms (HAPs) and low altitude platform (LAPs).
HAPs have altitudes above 17 km and are typically quasi-
stationary [14], [29]. LAPs, on the other hand, can fly at
altitudes of tens of meters up to a few kilometers, can quickly
move, and they are flexible [29].
We note that, according to US Federal aviation regulations,
the maximum allowable altitude of LAP-drones that can freely
fly without any permit is 400 feet1 [30]. Compared to HAPs,
the deployment of LAPs can be done more rapidly thus making
them more appropriate for time-sensitive applications (e.g.,
emergency situations). Unlike HAPs, LAPs can be used for
data collection from ground sensors. Moreover, LAPs can be
readily recharged or replaced if needed. In contrast, HAPs have
longer endurance and they are designed for long term (e.g.,
up to few months) operations. Furthermore, HAP systems
are typically preferred for providing and wide-scale wireless
coverage for large geographic areas [14]. However, HAPs are
costly and their deployment time is significantly longer than
LAPs.
UAVs can also be categorized, based on type, into fixed-
wing and rotary-wing UAVs. Compared to rotary-wing UAVs,
fixed-wing UAVs such as small aircrafts have more weights,
higher speed, and they need to move forward in order to
remain aloft. In contrast, rotary-wing UAVs such as quadrotor
drones, can hover and remain stationary over a given area
1 Hence, flying drones above 400 feet requires specific permissions from
the Federal aviation administration (FAA).
Table I: Regulations for the deployment of UAVs without any
specific permit.
Country Maximum altitude Minimum distance to people Minimum distance to airport
US 122 m N/A 8 km
Australia 120 m 30 m 5.5 km
South Africa 46 m 50 m 10 km
UK 122 m 50 m N/A
Chile 130 m 36 m N/A
[14]. In Figure 1, we provide an overview on the different
types of UAVs, their functions, and capabilities. We note that
the flight time of a UAV depends on several factors such as
energy source (e.g., battery, fuel, etc.,), type, weight, speed,
and trajectory of the UAV.
C. UAV Regulations
Regulatory issues are important limiting factors facing the
deployment of UAV-based communication systems. Despite
the promising applications of UAVs in wireless networks, there
are several concerns regarding privacy, public safety, security,
collision avoidance, and data protection. In this regard, UAV
regulations are being continuously developed to control the
operations of UAVs while considering various factors such
as UAV type, spectrum, altitude, and speed of UAVs. In
general, five main criteria are often considered when devel-
oping UAV regulations [31], [32]: 1) Applicability: pertains
to determining the scope (considering type, weight, and role
of UAVs) where UAV regulations are applied, 2) Operational
limitations: related to restrictions on the locations of UAVs,
3) Administrative procedures: specific legal procedures could
be needed to operate a UAV, 4) Technical requirements:
includes communications, control, and mechanical capabilities
of drones, 5) Implementation of ethical constraints: related to
privacy protection.
UAV regulations vary between different countries and types
of geographical areas (e.g., urban or rural). In the United
States, regulations for UAV operations are issued by the
federal aviation authority (FAA) and national aeronautics and
space administration (NASA). NASA is planning to develop
UAV control frameworks in collaboration with federal com-
munications commission (FCC) and FAA. FCC is currently
investigating if new spectrum policy needs to be established
for drone operations.
In Table I, we list a number of UAV regulations for
deployment of UAVs in various countries [31].
D. Relevant Surveys on UAVs and Our Contributions
These exciting new opportunities for using various types
of UAVs for wireless networking purposes have spawned
numerous recent research activities in the area [7]–[15], [33]–
[43]. These works also include a number of interesting surveys
such as in [14], [15], [31], [33], [44]–[55].
The work in [44] introduced decentralized communication
architectures for a multi-layer UAV ad hoc network. Further-
more, various routing protocols in flying ad-hoc networks
are proposed along with open research problems. In [45],
the authors provided an overview of flying ad-hoc networks
while considering technological and social implications. In
particular, the work in [45] discussed the applications of flying
ad-hoc networks, design considerations, communication pro-
tocols, and privacy aspects. In [46], a comprehensive review
of UAV-based flying ad hoc networks (FANETs) and their
challenges are provided. Moreover, several FANET design
challenges in terms of mobility, node density, topology change,
radio propagation model, and power consumption are inves-
tigated. The survey in [47] discussed the design challenges
pertaining to the use of UAVs as relay nodes in flying ad-
hoc networks. The work in [48] provided a comprehensive
survey on the potential use of UAVs for supporting IoT
services. In particular, key challenges and requirements for
designing UAV-assisted IoT networks are discussed in [48]. In
[49], the authors surveyed different mechanisms and protocols
for developing airborne communication networks while con-
sidering low-altitude-platform communications, high-altitude-
platform communications, and integrated airborne communi-
cation systems. The survey in [50] studied the use of HAPs
for broadband communications. Moreover, it described key
advantages of HAPs compared to terrestrial and satellite net-
works, suitable HAP airships, frequency bands, and possible
HAP-based network architectures. The authors in [51] studied
the challenges and advantages associated with a multi-tier
drone network architecture. Moreover, this work investigated
the performance of a multi-tier drone wireless system in
terms of spectral efficiency. In [31] a survey on UAV-enabled
cellular communications is provided with focus on relevant
3rd generation partnership project (3GPP ) developments,
standardization bodies for UAV users, vendor prototypes of
UAV BSs, regulations, and cyber-security aspects of deploying
UAVs in cellular networks. The survey in [52] presented the
communications and networking requirements of UAVs for
civil applications. In [53], the authors conducted a survey
on the key challenges in UAV-based wireless communication
networks. In particular, the work in [53] investigated issues
pertaining to routing strategies in flying UAV networks, energy
efficiency of UAVs, and seamless handover in UAV-enabled
wireless networks.
While these surveys address important UAV communica-
tion problems, as listed in Table II, they mainly limit their
discussions to cases in which UAVs are used as relay stations
in ad-hoc networks [14], [44]–[47], rather than fully fledged
flying base stations or drone-UEs that can support complex
ground networks, such as 5G cellular networks. Moreover, the
surveys in [14], [15], [31], [33], [48]–[54] remain restricted to
isolated UAV topics and use cases in wireless networking. In
addition, these surveys do not introduce potential analytical
frameworks that are essentially needed for designing and
analyzing UAV-based communication systems. More recently,
some surveys such as [55] looked at channel models for UAVs,
while overlooking broader networking problems. Clearly, the
existing literature on wireless networking using UAVs is
largely fragmented and, given the rapid emergence of the topic,
in academia, industry, and government, there is a clear need
for a unified and comprehensive overview on how UAVs can
be used as flying wireless base stations in emerging wireless,
Table II: Relevant surveys and magazines on UAV
communications.
References Focus
[44]–[47] Flying ad-hoc networks.
[48] UAV in IoT networks.
[49] Mechanisms for designing airborne communication networks.
[50] Broadband communications with HAPs.
[51] Network architecture for multi-tier drone.
[31] 3GPP developments, regulations, and cyber-security aspects of
UAVs.
[52] Networking requirements of UAVs for civil applications.
[14] UAV relays for wireless communications.
[53] Routing strategies, energy efficiency, and handover in UAV
networks.
[55] Channel modeling for UAVs.
[54] Interference and path loss study for UAVs.
[15], [33] UAV use cases.
This tutorial Opportunities, challenges, open problems, and mathematical
tools for UAV base stations and cellular-connected drone-UEs.
broadband, and beyond 5G scenarios.
The main contribution of this article is to provide the
first holistic and comprehensive overview and tutorial on the
use of UAVs for wireless communications and networking
applications. To this end, the goal is to gather the state-of-
the-art research contributions, from the largely fragmented
and sparse literature on UAV-based wireless communications.
Moreover, this work presents the major opportunities and
challenges in deploying UAVs as flying wireless base stations
that complement emerging wireless communication systems,
or as cellular-connected UAV-UEs that use existing wireless
infrastructure, with emphasis on application scenarios, chal-
lenges, representative results, open problems, and analytical
techniques that will enable the real-world deployment of UAVs
as aerial communication platforms. With the incessant growth
in research revolving around the use of UAVs for wireless
purposes, this article constitutes one of the first comprehen-
sives guides on how to fully exploit the potential of UAVs
for wireless communications and networking. To achieve this
goal, we treat the following key topics:
• In Section II, we provide a comprehensive overview on
potential applications of UAVs in a plethora of wireless
networking scenarios. These applications will provide
motivating examples and future use cases of UAVs,
particularly in their role as flying base stations.
• In Section III, we outline key research directions that
will enable the applications identified in Section II. For
each research direction, we provide an overview on the
research challenges, the state of the art, and promising
early results within these areas.
• In Section IV, for each research direction identified in
Section III, we provide an outline of challenging open
problems that must be addressed, in order to fully exploit
the potential of UAV-based wireless communications.
This, in turn, will provide a roadmap for future research
in this area.
• In Section V, we then provide a summary on analytical
frameworks that are expected to play an important role
in the design of future UAV-based wireless networks
 networks, and millimeter wave (mmW) communications, are
collectively viewed as the nexus of next-generation 5G cellular
- Long endurance (Days or months).
High altitude - Wide coverage.
systems [56]–[60]. However, despite their invaluable benefits,
platform - Quasi-stationary. those solutions have limitations of their own. For instance,
(HAP) - Altitude above 17 km.
D2D communication will undoubtedly require better frequency
Altitude planning and resource usage in cellular networks. Meanwhile,
- Fast and flexible deployment.
Low altitude - Quick mobility. ultra dense small cell networks face many challenges in
platform - Cost-effective.
(LAP) - Typically flies up to several hours.
terms of backhaul, interference, and overall network modeling.
Similarly, mmW communication is limited by blockage and
UAV high reliance on LoS communication to effectively deliver the
Classification - Such as small aircrafts.
- Cannot hover. promise of high-speed, low latency communications. These
Fixed-wing - High speed. challenges will be further exacerbated in UAV-UEs scenarios.
- Can carry high payload.
- Can fly for several hours.
We envision UAV-carried flying base stations as an in-
evitable complement for such a heterogeneous 5G environ-
Type
- Such as quadrotor drone. ment, which will allow overcoming some of the challenges of
- Can hover. the existing technologies. Deploying LAP-UAVs can be a cost-
- Low speed.
Rotary-wing - More energy limited than effective approach for providing wireless connectivity to geo-
fixed-wing. graphical areas with limited cellular infrastructure. Moreover,
- Less than 1 hour flight.
duration for typical drones. the use of UAV base stations becomes promising when deploy-
ing small cells for the sole purpose of servicing temporary
Fig. 1: UAV Classification. events (e.g., sport events and festivals), is not economically
viable, given the short period of time during which these events
require wireless access. Meanwhile, HAP-UAVs can provide a
that can enable network operators to leverage UAVs for more long-term sustainable solution for coverage in such rural
various application scenarios. environments. Mobile UAVs can provide on-demand connec-
• The article is concluded in Section VI with additional tivity, high data rate wireless service, and traffic offloading
insights on this fascinating area of research. opportunity [15], [61], [62] in hotspots and during temporary
events such as football games or Presidential inaugurations. In
II. W IRELESS N ETWORKING WITH UAV S : M OTIVATING this regard, AT&T and Verizon have already announced several
A PPLICATION U SE C ASES plans to use flying drones to provide temporarily boosted
In order to paint a clear picture on how UAVs can indeed Internet coverage for college football national championship
be used as flying wireless base stations, in this section, we and Super Bowl [63]. Clearly, flying base stations can provide
overview a number of prospective applications for such a an important complement to ultra dense small cell networks.
wireless-centric UAV deployment. The applications are drawn In addition, UAV-enabled mmW communications is a por-
from a variety of scenarios, that include imminent use cases, poising application of UAVs that can establish LoS communi-
such as for public safety scenarios or hotspot coverage, as cation links to users. This, in turn, can be an attractive solution
well as more “futuristic” applications such as the use of to provide high capacity wireless transmission, while leverag-
UAVs as caching apparatus or IoT enablers. Naturally, in all ing the advantages of both UAVs and mmW links. Moreover,
such applications, the UEs of the system can include cellular- combining UAVs with mmW and potentially massive multiple
connected UAV-UEs which we will also discuss. Note that this input multiple output (MIMO) techniques can create a whole
section restricts its attention to the application scenarios, while new sort of dynamic, flying cellular network for providing
the challenges are left for a deeper treatment in Section III. high capacity wireless services, if well planned and operated.
UAVs can also assist various terrestrial networks such as
A. UAV Aerial Base Station in 5G and Beyond D2D and vehicular networks. For instance, owing to their
Here, we discuss the key applications of UAV-mounted mobility and LoS communications, drones can facilitate rapid
aerial base stations in 5G. information dissemination among ground devices. Further-
1) Coverage and Capacity Enhancement of Beyond 5G more, drones can potentially improve the reliability of wireless
Wireless Cellular Networks: The need for high-speed wireless links in D2D and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications
access has been incessantly growing, fueled by the rapid prolif- while exploiting transmit diversity. In particular, flying drones
eration of highly capable mobile devices such as smartphones, can help in broadcasting common information to ground
tablets, and more recently drone-UEs and IoT-style gadgets devices thus reducing the interference in ground networks
[24]. As such, the capacity and coverage of existing wireless by decreasing the number of transmissions between devices.
cellular networks have been extensively strained, which led to Moreover, UAV base stations can use air-to-air links to service
the emergence of a plethora of wireless technologies that seek other cellular-connected UAV-UEs, to alleviate the load on the
to overcome this challenge. Such technologies, which include terrestrial network.
device-to-device (D2D) communications, ultra dense small cell For the aforementioned cellular networking scenarios, it is

Table III: UAV base station versus terrestrial base station.
UAV Base Stations Terrestrial Base Stations
• Deployment is naturally three- • Deployment is typically two-
dimensional. dimensional.
• Short-term, frequently changing • Mostly long-term, permanent de-
deployments. ployments.
• Mostly unrestricted locations. • Few, selected locations.
• Mobility dimension. • Fixed and static.
Table IV: UAV networks versus terrestrial networks.
UAV Networks Terrestrial Networks
• Spectrum is scarce. • Spectrum is scarce.
• Elaborate and stringent energy • Well-defined energy constraints
constraints and models. and models.
• Varying cell association. • Mainly static association.
• Hover and flight time constraints. • No timing constraints, BS always
there.
clear that the use of UAVs is quite natural due to their key
features given in Tables III and IV such as agility, mobility,
flexibility, and adaptive altitude. In fact, by exploiting these
unique features as well as establishing LoS communication
links, UAVs can boost the performance of existing ground
wireless networks in terms of coverage, capacity, delay, and
overall quality-of-service. Such scenarios are clearly promis-
ing and one can see UAVs as being an integral part of beyond
5G cellular networks, as the technology matures further, and
new operational scenarios emerge. Naturally, reaping these
benefits will require overcoming numerous challenges, that we
outline in Section III.
2) UAVs as Flying Base Stations for Public Safety Scenar-
ios: Natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornados, and
severe snow storms often yield devastating consequences in
many countries. During wide-scale natural disasters and unex-
pected events, the existing terrestrial communication networks
can be damaged or even completely destroyed, thus becoming
significantly overloaded, as evidenced by the recent aftermath
of Hurricanes Sandy and Irma [64]. In particular, cellular
base stations and ground communications infrastructure can be
often compromised during natural disasters. In such scenarios,
there is a vital need for public safety communications between
first responders and victims for search and rescue operations.
Consequently, a robust, fast, and capable emergency commu-
nication system is needed to enable effective communications
during public safety operations. In public safety scenarios,
such a reliable communication system will not only contribute
to improving connectivity, but also to saving lives.
In this regard, FirstNet in the United States was established
to create a nationwide and high-speed broadband wireless net-
work for public safety communications. The potential broad-
band wireless technologies for public safety scenarios include
4G long term evolution (LTE), WiFi, satellite communications,
and dedicated public safety systems such as TETRA and
APCO25 [65]. However, these technologies may not provide
flexibility, low-latency services, and swift adaptation to the
environment during natural disasters. In this regard, the use
of UAV-based aerial networks [66], as shown in Figure 2,
Drone
Fig. 2: Drone in public safety scenarios.
is a promising solution to enable fast, flexible, and reliable
wireless communications in public safety scenarios. Since
UAVs do not require highly constrained and expensive in-
frastructure (e.g., cables), they can easily fly and dynamically
change their positions to provide on-demand communications
to ground users in emergency situations. In fact, due the
unique features of UAVs such as mobility, flexible deployment,
and rapid reconfiguration, they can effectively establish on-
demand public safety communication networks. For instance,
UAVs can be deployed as mobile aerial base stations in
order to deliver broadband connectivity to areas with damaged
terrestrial wireless infrastructure. Moreover, flying UAVs can
continuously move to provide full coverage to a given area
within a minimum possible time. Therefore, the use of UAV-
mounted base stations can be an appropriate solution for
providing fast and ubiquitous connectivity in public safety
scenarios.
3) UAV-assisted Terrestrial Networks for Information Dis-
semination : With their mobility and LoS opportunities, UAVs
can support terrestrial networks for information dissemination
and connectivity enhancement [14], [67]. For instance, as
shown in Figure 3, UAVs can be used as flying base stations
to assist a D2D network or a mobile ad-hoc network in
information dissemination among ground devices. While D2D
networks can provide an effective solution for offloading cellu-
lar data traffic and improving network capacity and coverage,
their performance is limited due to the short communication
range of devices as well as potentially increasing interference.
In this case, flying UAVs can facilitate rapid information dis-
semination by intelligently broadcasting common files among
ground devices. For example, UAV-assisted D2D networks
allow the rapid spread of emergency or evacuation messages
in public safety situations.
Likewise, drones can play a key role in vehicular networks
(i.e., V2V communications) by spreading safety information
across the vehicles. Drones can also enhance reliability and
connectivity of D2D and V2V communication links. On the
one hand, using drones can mitigate interference by reducing
the number of required transmission links between ground
devices. On the other hand, mobile drones can introduce
transmit diversity opportunities thus boosting reliability and
connectivity in D2D, ad-hoc, and V2V networks. One effective
approach for employing such UAV-assisted terrestrial networks
 UAV-BS
UAV-UEs
V2V networks
D2D networks
Fig. 3: UAV-assisted terrestrial networks.
is to leverage clustering of ground users. Then, a UAV can
directly communicate with the head of the clusters and the
multi-hop communications are performed inside the clusters.
In this case, the connectivity of terrestrial networks can be sig-
nificantly improved by adopting efficient clustering approaches
and exploiting UAVs’ mobility.
4) 3D MIMO and Millimeter Wave Communications: Due
to their aerial positions and their ability to deploy on demand
at specific locations, UAVs can be viewed as flying antenna
systems that can be exploited for performing massive MIMO,
3D network MIMO, and mmW communications. For instance,
in recent years, there has been considerable interest in the
use of 3D MIMO, also known as full dimension MIMO,
by exploiting both the vertical and horizontal dimensions
in terrestrial cellular networks [68]–[74]. In particular, as
shown in Figure 4, 3D beamforming enables the creation of
separate beams in the three-dimensional space at the same
time, thus reducing inter-cell interference [75]. Compared to
the conventional two-dimensional MIMO, 3D MIMO solutions
can yield higher overall system throughput and can support a
higher number of users. In general, 3D MIMO is more suitable
for scenarios in which the number of users is high and they are
distributed in three dimensions with different elevation angles
with respect to their serving base station [14], [74]. Due to the
high altitude of UAV-carried flying base stations, ground users
can be easily distinguishable at different altitudes and elevation
angles measured with respect to the UAV. Furthermore, LoS
channel conditions in UAV-to-ground communications enable
effective beamforming in both azimuth and elevation domains
(i.e., in 3D). Therefore, UAV-BSs are suitable candidates for
employing 3D MIMO.
Furthermore, the use of a drone-based wireless antenna
array, that we introduced in [76], provides a unique opportu-
nity for airborne beamforming. A drone antenna array whose
elements are single-antenna drones can provide MIMO and
beamforming opportunities to effectively service ground users
in downlink and uplink scenarios. Compared to conventional
antenna array systems, a drone-based antenna array has the
following advantages: 1) The number of antenna elements
(i.e., drones) is not limited by space constraints, 2) Beam-
forming gains can be increased by dynamically adjusting the
array element spacing, and 3) The mobility and flexibility of
UAV
2D beamforming 3D beamforming
user
Fig. 4: 3D beamforming using a drone.
drones allow effective mechanical beam-steering in any 3D
direction. In addition, the use of a large number of small UAVs
within an array formation can provide unique massive MIMO
opportunists. Such UAV-based massive antenna array can form
any arbitrary shape and effectively perform beamforming.
UAVs can also be a key enabler for mmW communications2
(e.g., see [14], [15], [77], [78], and [79]). On the one hand,
UAVs equipped with mmW capabilities can establish LoS
connections to ground users thus reducing propagation loss
while operating at high frequencies. On the other hand, with
the use of small-size antennas (at mmW frequencies) on UAVs,
one can exploit advanced MIMO techniques such as massive
MIMO in order to operate mmW communications. Meanwhile,
swarms of UAVs can create reconfigurable antenna arrays in
the sky [76].
5) UAVs for IoT Communications: Wireless networking
technologies are rapidly evolving into a massive IoT envi-
ronment that must integrate a heterogeneous mix of devices
ranging from conventional smartphones and tablets to vehicles,
sensors, wearables, and naturally, drones. Realizing the much
coveted applications of the IoT such as smart cities infras-
tructure management, healthcare, transportation, and energy
management [24], [80]–[82] requires effective wireless con-
nectivity among a massive number of IoT devices that must
reliably deliver their data, typically at high data rates or ultra
low latency. The massive nature of the IoT requires a major
rethinking to the way in which conventional wireless networks
(e.g., cellular systems) operate.
For instance, in an IoT environment, energy efficiency, ultra
low latency, reliability, and high-speed uplink communications
become major challenges that are not typically as critical in
conventional cellular network use cases [81]. In particular, IoT
devices are highly battery limited and are typically unable to
transmit over a long distance due to their energy constraints.
For instance, in areas which experience an intermittent or poor
coverage by terrestrial wireless networks, battery-limited IoT
devices may not be able to transmit their data to distant base
stations due to their power constraints. Furthermore, due to the
various applications of IoT devices, they might be deployed
in environments with no terrestrial wireless infrastructure such
as mountains and desert areas.
In this regard, the use of mobile UAVs is a promising solu-
2 It is worth noting that mmW communications have been already adopted
for satellite and HAPS communications [77].
tion to a number of challenges associated with IoT networks.
In IoT-centric scenarios, UAVs can be deployed as flying base
stations to provide reliable and energy-efficient uplink IoT
communications (e.g., see [7], [10], [83], and [84]). In fact,
due to the aerial nature of the UAVs and their high altitude,
they can be effectively deployed to reduce the shadowing and
blockage effects as the major cause of signal attenuation in
wireless links. As a result of such efficient placement of UAVs,
the communication channel between IoT devices and UAVs
can be significantly improved. Subsequently, battery-limited
IoT devices will need a significantly lower power to transmit
their data to UAVs. In other words, UAVs can be placed based
on the locations of IoT devices enabling those devices to
successfully connect to the network using a minimum transmit
power. Moreover, UAVs can also serve massive IoT systems by
dynamically updating their locations based on the activation
pattern of IoT devices. This is in contrast to using ground
small cell base stations which may need to be substantially
expanded to service the anticipated number of devices in
the IoT. Hence, by exploiting unique features of UAVs, the
connectivity and energy efficiency of IoT networks can be
significantly improved.
6) Cache-Enabled UAVs: Caching at small base stations
(SBSs) has emerged as a promising approach to improve users’
throughput and to reduce the transmission delay [85]–[89].
However, caching at static ground base stations may not be
effective in serving mobile users in case of frequent handovers
(e.g., as in ultra-dense networks with moving users). In this
case, when a user moves to a new cell, its requested content
may not be available at the new base station and, thus, the
users cannot be served properly. To effectively service mobile
users in such scenarios, each requested content needs to be
cached at multiple base stations which is not efficient due to
signaling overheads and additional storage usages. Hence, to
enhance caching efficiency, there is a need to deploy flexible
base stations that can track the users’ mobility and effectively
deliver the required contents.
To this end, we envision futuristic scenarios in which UAVs,
acting as flying base stations, can dynamically cache the pop-
ular contents, track the mobility pattern of the corresponding
users and, then, effectively serve them [8], [90], [91]. In fact,
the use of cache-enabled UAVs is a promising solution for traf-
fic offloading in wireless networks. By leveraging user-centric
information, such as content request distribution and mobility
patterns, cache-enabled UAVs can be optimally moved and
deployed to deliver desired services to users. Another advan-
tage of deploying cache-enabled UAVs is that the caching
complexity can be reduced compared to a conventional static
SBSs case. For instance, whenever a mobile user moves to
a new cell, its requested content needs to be stored at the
new base station. However, cache-enabled drones can track the
mobility pattern of users and, consequently, the content stored
at the drones will no longer require such additional caching at
SBSs. In practice, in a cache-enabled UAV system, a central
cloud processor can utilize various user-centric information
including users’ mobility patterns and their content request
distribution to manage the UAV deployment. In fact, such user-
enteric information can be learned by a cloud center using
any previous available users’ data. Then, the cloud center
can effectively determine the locations and mobility paths of
cache-enabled UAVs to serve ground users 3 . This, in turn, can
reduce the overall overhead of updating the cache content.
While performing caching with SBSs, content requests of a
mobile user may need to be dynamically stored at different
SBSs. However, cache-enabled UAVs can track the mobility
pattern of users and avoid frequently updating the content
requests of mobile users. Therefore, ground users can be
effectively served by exploiting mobile cache-enabled UAVs
that predict mobility patterns and content request information
of users.
B. Cellular-Connected Drones as User Equipments
Naturally, drones can act as users of the wireless infrastruc-
ture. In particular, drone-users can be used for package deliv-
ery, surveillance, remote sensing, and virtual reality applica-
tions. Indeed, cellular-connected UAVs will be a key enabler of
the IoT. For instance, for delivery purposes, drones are used for
Amazon’s prime air drone delivery service, and autonomous
delivery of emergency drugs [93]. The key advantage of drone-
users is their ability to swiftly move and optimize their path
to quickly complete their missions. To properly use drones
as user equipments (i.e., cellular-connected drone-UEs [75]),
there is a need for reliable and low-latency communication
between drones and ground BSs. In fact, to support a large-
scale deployment of drones, a reliable wireless communication
infrastructure is needed to effectively control the drones’
operations while supporting the traffic stemming from their
application services [94].
Beyond their need for ultra low latency and reliability,
when used for surveillance purposes, drone-UEs will require
high-speed uplink connectivity from the terrestrial network
and from other UAV-BSs. In this regard, current cellular
networks may not be able to fully support drone-UEs as they
were designed for ground users whose operations, mobility,
and traffic characteristics are substantially different from the
drone-UEs. There are a number of key differences between
drone-UEs and terrestrial users. First, drone-UEs typically
experience different channel conditions due to nearly LoS
communications between ground BSs and flying drones. In
this case, one of the main challenges for supporting drone-
UEs is significant LoS interference caused by ground BSs4 .
Second, unlike terrestrial users, the on-board energy of drone-
UEs is highly limited. Third, drone-UEs are in general more
dynamic than ground users as they can continuously fly
in any direction. Therefore, incorporating cellular-connected
drone-UEs in wireless networks will introduce new technical
challenges and design considerations.
3 Caching with UAVs can also be an important use-case for future flying
taxis [92].
4 One approach for mitigating such LoS interference is to utilize full-
dimensional MIMO in BS-to-drone communications [75].
C. Flying Ad-hoc Networks with UAVs
One of the key use cases of UAVs is in flying ad-hoc
networks (FANETs) in which multiple UAVs communicate
in an ad-hoc manner. With their mobility, lack of central
control, and self-organizing nature, FANETs can expand the
connectivity and communication range at geographical areas
with limited cellular infrastructure [45]. Meanwhile, FANETs
play important roles in various applications such as traffic
monitoring, remote sensing, border surveillance, disaster man-
agement, agricultural management, wildfire management, and
relay networks [45]–[47]. In particular, a relaying network
of UAVs maintains reliable communication links between a
remote transmitters and receivers that cannot directly commu-
nicate due to obstacles or their long separation distance.
Compared to a single UAV, a FANET with multiple small
UAVs has the following advantages [46]:
• Scalability: The operational coverage of FANETs can
be easily increased by adding new UAVs and adopting
efficient dynamic routing schemes.
• Cost: The deployment and maintenance cost of small
UAVs is lower than the cost of a large UAV with complex
hardware and heavy payload.
• Survivability: In FANETs, if one UAV becomes inoper-
ational (due to weather conditions or any failure in the
UAV system), FANETs missions can still proceed with
rest of flying UAVs. Such flexibility does not exist in a
single UAV system.
D. Other Potential UAV Use Cases
1) UAVs as Flying Backhaul for Terrestrial Networks:
Wired backhauling is a common approach for connecting base
stations to a core network in terrestrial networks. However,
wired connections can be expensive and infeasible due to
geographical constraints, especially when dealing with ultra
dense cellular networks [95]–[97]. While wireless backhauling
is a viable and cost-effective solution, it suffers from blockage
and interference that degrade the performance of the radio
access network [98]. In this case, UAVs can play a key role
in enabling cost-effective, reliable, and high speed wireless
backhaul connectivity for ground networks [99]. In particular,
UAVs can be optimally placed to avoid obstacles and establish
LoS and reliable communication links. Moreover, the use of
UAVs with mmW capabilities can establish high data rate
wireless backhaul connections that are needed to cope with
high traffic demands in congested areas. UAVs can also create
a reconfigurable network in the sky and provide multi-hop
LoS wireless backhauling opportunities. Clearly, such flexible
UAV-based backhaul networks can significantly improve the
reliability, capacity, and operation cost of backhauling in
terrestrial networks.
2) Smart Cities: Realizing a global vision of smart and
connected communities and cities is a daunting technologi-
cal challenge. Smart cities will effectively have to integrate
many of the previously mentioned technologies and services
including an IoT environment (with its numerous services), a
reliable wireless cellular network, resilience to calamities, and
huge amounts of data [100]. To this end, UAVs can provide
several wireless application use cases in smart cities. On the
one hand, they can be used as data collection devices that
can gather vast amounts of data across various geographical
areas within a city and deliver them to central cloud units
for big data analytics purposes. On the other hand, UAV base
stations can be used to simply enhance the coverage of the
cellular network in a city or to respond to specific emergencies.
UAVs can also be used to sense the radio environment maps
[101] across a city, in order to assist network operators in
their network and frequency planning efforts. Another key
application of UAVs in smart cities is their ability to act as
mobile cloud computing systems [40]. In this regards, a UAV-
mounted cloudlet can provide fog computing and offloading
opportunities for devices that are unable to perform computa-
tionally heavy tasks. We note that, within smart cities, drones
may need to temporarily position themselves on buildings for
specific purposes (e.g., recharge). In such case, there is a
need for on-demand site renting management to accommodate
drones’ operation. Overall, UAVs will be an integral part of
smart cities, from both wireless and operational perspectives.
E. Summary of Lessons Learned
The key lessons learned from Section II are listed as follows:
• Flying UAVs can play several roles in wireless networks.
In particular, UAVs can be used as aerial base stations,
user equipments in cellular networks, or mobile relay in
flying ad-hoc networks. Moreover, they have promising
applications in wireless backhauling and smart cities.
• UAV base stations can significantly improve the coverage
and capacity of wireless networks. Furthermore, they can
be deployed to enable connectivity in public safety infor-
mation dissemination scenarios. UAVs can also facilitate
millimeter wave communications and reliable energy effi-
cient IoT communications. Meanwhile, the deployment of
cache-enabled UAV base stations is a promising solution
for traffic offloading in wireless networks.
• Drones can also act as flying users within a cellular net-
work in various applications such as package delivery and
virtual reality. Cellular-connected drones can freely move
and optimize their route so as to quickly complete their
missions and deliver their tasks. Such cellular-connected
drones require reliable and low-latency communications
with ground base stations.
• Self-organizing and flexible flying ad-hoc networks of
UAVs can provide coverage expansion for geographical
areas with limited wireless infrastructure.
Clearly, the aforementioned applications are only a selected
sample of potential use cases of UAVs as flying wireless
platforms. If realized, such applications will have far reaching
technological and societal impacts. However, in order to truly
deploy such UAV-centric applications, one must overcome
numerous technical challenges, as outlined in the next section.

UAV-Enabled Wireless
Networks
Benefits and Challenges
Applications
 Coverage and capacity enhancement  Optimal 3D placement
 LoS communications  Channel modeling
 Internet of Things support  Energy limitation
 On-demand communications  Flight time constraints
 Fast, flexible and efficient deployment  Performance analysis
 Emergency situations and disaster relief  Path planning
 No significant infrastructure: Low cost  Security and privacy issues
 Localization, search and rescue  Interference management
 Information dissemination  Backhaul connectivity
Fig. 5: Opportunities, applications, and challenges of
UAV-enabled wireless networks.
III. R ESEARCH D IRECTIONS , C HALLENGES , AND
S TATE - OF - THE -A RT
In this section, inspired by the aforementioned applications,
we present a comprehensive overview on the key research
directions that must be pursued for practically deploying UAVs
as flying wireless platforms. For each research direction, we
first outline the key challenges, and then we discuss the state
of the art, while also providing an overview on recent results.
A. Air-to-Ground Channel Modeling
1) Challenges: Wireless signal propagation is affected by
the medium between the transmitter and the receiver. The
air-to-ground (A2G) channel characteristics significantly differ
from classical ground communication channels which, in turn,
can determine the performance of UAV-based wireless com-
munications in terms of coverage and capacity [29], [102]–
[104]. Also, compared to air-to-air communication links that
experience dominant LoS, A2G channels are more susceptible
to blockage. Clearly, the optimal design and deployment of
drone-based communication systems require using an accurate
A2G channel model. While the ray-tracing technique is a
reasonable approach for channel modeling, it lacks sufficient
accuracy, particularly at low frequency operations [105]. An
accurate A2G channel modeling is important especially when
using UAVs in applications such as coverage enhancement,
cellular-connected UAV-UEs, and IoT communications.
The A2G channel characteristics significantly differ from
ground communication channels [75]. In particular, any move-
ment or vibration by the UAVs can affect the channel char-
acteristics. Moreover, the A2G channel is highly dependent
on the altitude and type of the UAV, elevation angle, and
type of the propagation environment. Therefore, finding a
generic channel model for UAV-to-ground communications
needs comprehensive simulations and measurements in various
environments. In addition, the effects of a UAV’s altitude,
antennas’ movements, and shadowing caused by the UAV’s
body must be captured in channel modeling. Clearly, capturing
such factors is challenging in A2G channel modeling.
2) State of the Art: Now, we discuss a number of recent
studies on A2G channel modeling. The work in [106] pre-
sented an overview of existing research related to A2G channel
modeling. In [107], the authors provided both simulation and
measurement results for path loss, delay spread, and fading
in A2G communications. In [55], the authors provided a
comprehensive survey on A2G propagation while describing
large-scale and small-scale fading models. In [102] and [103],
the authors performed thorough path loss modeling for high
altitude A2G communications. As discussed in [102], [15],
and [14], by efficiently deploying UAVs, their A2G commu-
nication links can experience a better channel quality (and
a higher likelihood of LoS connections) compared to fixed
terrestrial base stations. The authors in [104] presented a
channel propagation model for high altitude platforms and
ground users communications in an urban area. In [104],
based on empirical results, the statistical characteristics of the
channel are modeled as a function of the elevation angle. In
particular, the authors in [104] considered LoS and NLoS
links between the HAP and ground users and derived the
probability of occurrence associated with each link. In [108],
the likelihood of LoS links for A2G communication was
derived as a function of elevation angle and average height
of buildings in urban environments. In addition, there are
some measurement-based studies on UAV-to-ground channel
modeling such as [109]–[112] that identified some of the key
channel characteristics. These works provide some insights on
the A2G channel characteristics that can be used to find a
more generic channel model.
3) Representative Result: One of the most widely adopted
A2G path loss model for low altitude platforms is presented
in [29] and, thus, we explain it in more detail. As shown
in [29], the path loss between a UAV and a ground device
depends on the locations of the UAV and the ground device
as well as the type of propagation environment (e.g., rural,
suburban, urban, high-rise urban). In this case, depending on
the environment, A2G communication links can be either LoS
or NLoS. Note that, without any additional information about
the exact locations, heights, and number of the obstacles,
one must consider the randomness associated with the LoS
and NLoS links. As a result, many of the existing literature
on UAV communication (e.g., [8], [15], [37], [64], [90],
[99], [113]–[117]) adopted the probabilistic path loss model
given in [11], and [29]. As discussed in these works, the
LoS and non-LoS (NLoS) links can be considered separately
with different probabilities of occurrence. The probability of
occurrence is a function of the environment, density and
height of buildings, and elevation angle between UAV and
ground device. The common probabilistic LoS model is based
on the general geometrical statistics of various environments
provided by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-
R) [118]. In particular, for various types of environments, the
ITU-R provides some environmental-dependent parameters to
determine the density, number, and hight of the buildings (or
obstacles). For instance, according to [118], the buildings’
 UAV
NLoS
LoS
h factors such as deployment environment (e.g., geographical
ϴ area), locations of ground users, and UAV-to-ground channel
( x, y)
Ground user
Fig. 6: UAV communication.
heights can be modeled using a Rayleigh distribution as:
hB

−hB
 in a continuous 3D space while considering the impact of
f (hB ) = 2 exp , (1)
γ 2γ 2
where hB is the height of buildings in meters, and γ is
a environmental-dependent parameter [11]. Clearly, due to
the randomness (uncertainty) associated with the height of
buildings (from a UAV perspective), one must consider a
probabilistic LoS model while designing UAV-based commu-
nication systems. Therefore, using the statistical parameters
provided by ITU-R, other works such as [11] and [29] derived
an expression for the LoS probability, which is given by [8],
[29], [37], [64], [113]–[117]:
1 coverage range is determined by comparing the average path
PLoS = , (2)
1 + C exp(−B [θ − C])
where C and B are constant values that depend on the
environment (rural, urban, dense urban, or others) and θ
is
−1 h
the elevation angle in degrees. Clearly, θ = 180
π × sin d ,
with h being the UAV’s altitude, and d is the distance between
the UAV and a given ground user. In this case, the NLoS
probability will be PNLoS = 1 − PLoS . We note that the
probabilistic path loss model in (2) is an example of existing
A2G channel models such as the one proposed by the 3GPP
[75].
Equation (2) captures the probability of having LoS con-
nection between the aerial base station and ground users
is an increasing function of elevation angle. According to
this equation, by increasing the elevation angle between the
receiver and the transmitter, the blockage effect decreases and
the communication link becomes more LoS.
It is worth noting that the small-scale fading in A2G
communications can be characterized by Rician fading channel
model [107]. The Rician K-factor that represents the strength
of LoS component is a function of elevation angle and the
UAV’s altitude.
B. Optimal Deployment of UAVs as Flying Base Stations
1) Challenges: The three dimensional deployment of UAVs
is one of the key challenges in UAV-based communications.
In fact, as mentioned in Tables III and IV, the adjustable
height of UAVs and their potential mobility provide additional
degrees of freedom for an efficient deployment. As a result,
optimal deployment of UAVs has received significant attention
[7], [8], [11]–[13], [34], [35], [37], [113], [119], [120]. In
fact, deployment is a key design consideration while using
UAVs for coverage and capacity maximization, public safety,
smart cities, caching, and IoT applications. The optimal 3D
placement of UAVs is a challenging task as it depends on many
characteristics which itself is a function of a UAV’s altitude.
In addition, simultaneously deploying multiple UAVs becomes
more challenging due to the impact of inter-cell interference
on the system performance. In fact, the deployment of UAVs
is significantly more challenging than that of ground base
stations, as done in conventional cellular network planning.
Unlike terrestrial base stations UAVs needs to be deployed
altitude on the A2G channel characteristics. Moreover, while
deploying UAVs, their flight time and energy constraints must
be also taken into account, as they directly impact the network
performance.
2) State of the Art: Recently, the deployment problem of
UAVs in wireless networks has been extensively studied in
the literature. For instance, in [7], the optimal deployment and
mobility of multiple UAVs for energy-efficient data collection
from IoT devices was investigated. In [11], the authors derived
the optimal altitude enabling a single UAV to achieve a
maximum coverage radius. In this work, the deterministic
loss with a specified threshold. As shown in [11], for very
low altitudes, due to the shadowing effect, the probability of
LoS connections between transmitter and receiver decreases
and, consequently, the coverage radius decreases. On the other
hand, at very high altitudes, LoS links exist with a high
probability. However, due to the large distance between trans-
mitter and receiver, the path loss increases and consequently
the coverage performance decreases. Therefore, to find the
optimal UAV’s altitude, the impact of both distance and LoS
probability should be considered simultaneously.
In [12], we extended the results of [11] to the case of two,
interfering UAVs. In [13], we investigated the optimal 3D
placement of multiple UAVs, that use directional antennas,
to maximize total coverage area. The work in [37] analyzed
the impact of a UAV’s altitude on the sum-rate maximization
of a UAV-assisted terrestrial wireless network. In [15], the
authors investigated the 3D placement of drones with the
goal of maximizing the number of ground users which are
covered by the drone. In [113], the authors studied the efficient
deployment of aerial base stations to maximize the coverage
performance. Furthermore, the authors in [113] determined
the minimum number of drones needed for serving all the
ground users within a given area. In [119], the authors used
evolutionary algorithms to find the optimal placement of LAPs
and portable base stations for disaster relief scenarios. In this
work, by deploying the UAVs at the optimal locations, the
number of base stations required to completely cover the
desired area was minimized. The work in [121] proposed a
framework for a cooperative deployment and task allocation of
UAVs that service ground users. In [121], the problem of joint
 UAV 1
UAV 2
400 UAV 3
UAV 4
Altitude (m)
300
Devices
200
100
0
1000
800
600
400
Y−axis (m) 200 500
0 0 X−axis (m)
Fig. 7: Optimal 3D locations of UAVs [7].
deployment and task allocation was addressed by exploiting
the concepts of coalitional game theory and queueing theory.
Moreover, the deployment of UAVs for supplementing ex-
isting cellular infrastructure was discussed in [122]. In this
work, a general view of the potential integration of UAVs
with cellular networks was presented. In [123], the authors
investigated the optimal deployment of a UAV that acts as a
wireless relay between the transmitter and the receiver. The
optimal location of the UAV was determined by maximizing
the average rate while ensuring that the bit error rate will not
exceed a specified threshold. As shown in [123], a UAV should
be placed closer to the ground device (transmitter or receiver)
which has a poor link quality to the UAV. The authors in [124]
studied the use of UAV relays to enhance the connectivity
of a ground wireless network. In this work, flying UAVs
are optimally deployed to guarantee the message delivery of
sensors to destinations. The work in [125] investigated the
deployment of multiple UAVs as wireless relays in order to
provide service for ground sensors. In particular, this work
addressed the tradeoff between connectivity among the UAVs
and maximizing the area covered by the UAVs.
3) Representative Results: In [7], we proposed a framework
for dynamic deployment and mobility of UAVs to enable
reliable and energy-efficient IoT communications. In Figure 7,
we show a representative result on the optimal 3D placement
of UAVs, taken from [7]. In this case, four UAVs are de-
ployed to collect data (in the uplink) from IoT devices which
are uniformly distributed within a geographical area of size
1km × 1km. Here, using tools from optimization theory and
facility location problems, we derived the optimal 3D positions
of the UAVs as well as the device-UAV associations such that
the total uplink transmit power of devices is minimized while
ensuring reliable communications. As a result, the devices are
able to send their data to the associated UAVs while using a
minimum total transmit power. This result shows that UAVs
can be optimally deployed to enable reliable and energy-
efficient uplink communications in IoT networks.
Figure 8 shows the average transmit power of devices in
the optimal deployment scenario with a case in which aerial
base stations are pre-deployed (i.e., without optimizing the
0.4 Optimal deployment
Pre−deployed aerial base stations
Total transmit power (W)
0.3
0.2
0.1
1000
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Number of UAVs
Fig. 8: Total transmit power of devices vs. number of UAVs
(for 80 IoT devices).
UAVs’ locations). As we can see, the average transmit power
of devices can be reduced by 78% by optimally deploying
the UAVs. Figure 8 also shows that the uplink transmit power
decreases while increasing the number of UAVs. Clearly, the
energy efficiency of the IoT network is significantly improved
by exploiting the flexibility of drones and optimizing their
locations.
Next, we discuss another key result on the deployment of
multiple UAVs for maximizing wireless coverage. In our work
in [13], we consider multiple UAV-BSs that must provide a
downlink wireless service to a circular geographical area of
radius 5 km. We assume that the UAVs are symmetric and
have the same transmit power and altitude. In the considered
model, each UAV uses a directional antenna with a certain
beamwidth, and UAVs operate at the same frequency band.
Our goal is to optimally deploy the UAVs in 3D space such that
their total coverage area is maximized while avoiding mutual
interference between the UAVs. To this end, we tackle our
problem by exploiting circle packing theory [126]. Our results
provide rigorous guidelines on how to optimally adjust the
location and, in particular, the altitude of UAVs, based on the
antenna beamwidth, size of the area, and the number of UAVs.
In Figure 9, we show a representative result from [13]. In
particular, Figure 9 shows how the optimal UAVs’ altitude
varies by changing the number of UAVs. Intuitively, to avoid
interference, the height of UAVs must be decreased as the
number of UAVs increases. In this case, for a higher number
of UAVs, the coverage radius of each UAV must be decreased
by reducing its altitude to avoid overlapping (or interference)
between their coverage regions. For instance, by increasing the
number of UAVs from 3 to 6, the optimal altitude decreases
from 2000 m to 1300 m. This figure also shows that the UAVs
must be placed at lower altitudes when they use directional
antennas with higher antenna beamwidths.
C. Trajectory Optimization
Optimal path planning for UAVs is another important chal-
lenge in UAV-based communication systems. In particular,
optimizing the trajectory of UAVs is crucial while using
them for smart cities, drone-UE, and caching scenarios. The
 3500
Beamwidth= 100o
3000 Beamwidth= 80o
UAV altitude (m)
2500
2000
1500
1000
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of UAVs
Fig. 9: Each UAV’s altitude for various number of UAVs.
trajectory of a UAV is significantly affected by different factors
such as flight time, energy constraints, ground users’ demands,
and collision avoidance.
Naturally, optimizing the flight path of UAVs is challenging
as it requires considering many physical constraints and pa-
rameters. For instance, while finding the trajectories of UAVs
for performance optimization, one needs to consider various
key factors such as channel variation due to the mobility,
UAV’s dynamics, energy consumption of UAVs, and flight
constraints. Furthermore, solving a continuous UAV trajectory
optimization problem is known to be analytically challenging
as it involves finding an infinite number of optimization
variables (i.e. UAV’s locations) [14]. In addition, trajectory
optimization in UAV-enabled wireless networks requires cap-
turing coupling between mobility and various QoS metrics in
wireless communication.
1) State of the Art: Trajectory optimization for UAVs has
been primarily studied from a robotics/control perspective
[127]–[132]. More recently, there has been a number of works
that study the interplay between the trajectory of a UAV and its
wireless communication performance. The work in [36] jointly
optimized user scheduling and UAV trajectory for maximizing
the minimum average rate among ground users. In [133], the
authors investigated the optimal trajectory of UAVs equipped
with multiple antennas for maximizing sum-rate in uplink
communications. The work in [134] maximized the throughput
of a relay-based UAV system by jointly optimizing the UAV’s
trajectory as well as the source/relay transmit power. In [135],
a UAV path planning algorithm for photographic sensing of
a given geographical area was proposed. The algorithm of
[135] led to a minimum total energy consumption for the
UAV while covering the entire survey area. To this end, the
authors in [135] computed the optimal set of waypoints and the
optimal speed of the UAV in the path between the waypoints.
In [136], considering collision avoidance, no-fly zones, and
altitude constraints, the optimal paths of UAVs that minimize
the fuel consumption were computed using the mixed integer
linear programming.
Moreover, the authors in [137] investigated the path plan-
ning problem for UAVs in the search and localization applica-
tions using camera measurements. In this work, path planning
was analyzed by maximizing the likelihood of target detection.
In [138], the authors investigated how to optimally move UAVs
for improving connectivity of ad-hoc networks assuming that
the drones have complete information on the location of
devices. The work in [36] studied the joint user scheduling
and UAV trajectory design to maximize the minimum rate
of ground users in a multi-UAV enabled wireless network. In
addition, there are some works that studied the UAV trajectory
optimization for localization purposes. For instance, the work
in [127] investigated path planning for multiple UAVs for
10
localization of a passive emitter. In this work, using the angle
of arrival and time difference of arrival information, the set
of waypoints which leads to a minimum localization error
was determined. However, the work in [127] was limited
to localization and did not directly address any wireless
communication problem. Other works on UAV navigation and
cooperative control are found in [128]–[132].
In fact, prior studies on UAV trajectory optimization focused
on three aspects: control and navigation, localization [139],
and wireless communications. In particular, in the existing
works on UAV communications, trajectory optimization was
performed with respect to energy consumption, rate, and
reliability.
2) Representative Result: One representative result on tra-
jectory optimization can be found in our work in [7]. In par-
ticular, we considered a drone-assisted IoT network scenario
in which 5 drones are used to collect data from ground IoT
devices. A set of 500 IoT devices are uniformly distributed
within a geographical size of 1 km × 1 km. We considered
a time-varying IoT network in which the set of active IoT
devices changes over time, based on a beta distribution [140].
Hence, to effectively serve the IoT devices, the drones must
update their locations according to the locations of active
devices. In this model, we consider some pre-defined time slots
during which the drones collect data from active IoT devices.
At the end of each time slot (i.e., update time), the drones’
update their locations based on the activation pattern of IoT
devices. Given such a time-varying network, our goal is to find
the optimal trajectory of drones such that they can update their
locations with a minimum energy consumption. Therefore,
while serving IoT devices, the drones move within optimal
paths so as to minimize their mobility energy consumption.
Figure 10 shows the total energy consumption of drones as
a function of the number of updates. As expected, a higher
number of updates requires more mobility of the drones thus
more energy consumption. We compare the performance of
the optimal path planning with a case that drones update their
locations following pre-defined paths. As we can see, by using
optimal path planning, the average total energy consumption
of drones decreases by 74% compared to the non-optimal case.
In fact, to effectively use UAVs in wireless networks, the
trajectory of UAVs needs to be optimized with respect to wire-
less metrics such as throughput and coverage as well as energy
constraints of UAVs. While jointly optimizing trajectory and
communication is a challenging task, it can significantly
improve the performance of UAV-enabled wireless networks.
 Total energy consumption of drones (kJ)
2500
Pre−defined path planning
Optimal path planning
2000
1500
1000
500
0 coverage and rate performance of a single UAV that co-exists
1 2 3 4
Number of updates
Fig. 10: Total energy consumption of drones on mobility vs.
number of updates.
D. Performance Analysis of UAV-Enabled Wireless Networks
1) Challenges: A fundamental analysis of the performance
of UAV-enabled wireless systems is required in order to
evaluate the impact of each design parameter on the overall
system performance [10], [141]. In particular, the performance
of the UAV systems must analyzed in terms of the key QoS
metrics such as coverage probability, throughput, delay, or reli-
ability (e.g., for cellular-connected drones). Such performance
evaluations can also reveal the inherent tradeoffs that one faces
when designing UAV-based systems.
Clearly, while designing UAV-based communication sys-
tems, a fundamental performance analysis needs to be done
in order to evaluate the impact of design parameters on the
overall system performance. Naturally, devising a fundamen-
tal analysis of the wireless performance of a UAV-based
wireless system will substantially differ from conventional
ground networks due to the altitude and potential mobility
of UAVs as well as their different channel characteristics. The
stringent energy limitations of UAVs also introduce unique
challenges. The limited available on-board energy of UAVs
which leads to the short flight duration is a major factor
impacting the performance of wireless communications using
UAVs. Indeed, analyzing the performance of a complex het-
erogeneous aerial-terrestrial wireless network that is composed
of flying and ground base stations is a challenging task.
In fact, there is a need for a comprehensive performance
analysis of UAV-enabled wireless networks while capturing
various aspects of UAVs including mobility, and specific A2G
channel characteristics in coexistence with terrestrial networks.
Moreover, performance characterization of cellular-connected
drone networks with flying users and base stations has its own
complexity due to the mobile and highly dynamic nature of
the network.
2) State of the Art: Prior to our seminal work in this area
in [10], most of the existing works focused on performance
analysis of UAVs acting as relays, or in ad-hoc networks [138],
[142]–[144]. For instance, the work in [142] evaluated the
performance of a UAV ad-hoc network in terms of achievable
transmission rate and end-to-end delay. In [143], the authors
studied the use of macro UAV relays to enhance the throughput
of the cellular networks. The work in [138], derived the
probability of successful connectivity among ground devices in
a UAV-assisted ad-hoc network. In [144], the authors analyzed
the performance of UAVs acting as relays for ground devices
in a wireless network. In particular, the authors derived closed-
form expressions for signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) distribution
and ergodic capacity of UAV-ground devices links. In contrast,
in [10], we considered the use of UAVs as stand-alone aerial
base stations. In particular, we investigated the downlink
5 6 7
with a device-to-device communication network.
Following our work in [10], the authors in [145] derived
an exact expression for downlink coverage probability for
ground receivers which are served by multiple UAVs. In
particular, using tools from stochastic geometry, the work in
[145] provided the coverage analysis in a finite UAV network
considering a Nakagami-m fading channel for UAV-to-user
communications. In [116], the performance of a single drone-
based communication system in terms of outage probability,
bit error rate, and outage capacity was investigated. The work
in [146] analyzed the coverage and throughput for a network
with UAVs and underlaid traditional cellular networks. In
this work, using 3D and 2D Poisson point processes (PPP),
the downlink coverage probability and rate expressions were
derived. In [147], the authors evaluated the performance of
using UAVs for overload and outage compensation in cellular
networks. Clearly, such fundamental performance analysis
is needed to provide various key design insights for UAV
communication systems.
3) Representative Result: As per our work in [10], we
considered a circular area with in which a number of users
are spatiality distributed according to a PPP [148], and a
UAV-mounted aerial base station is used to serve a subset of
those users. In the considered network, there are two types of
users: downlink users and D2D users. Here, we consider the
downlink scenario for the UAV while the D2D users operate
in an underlay fashion. Moreover, we assume that a D2D
receiver connects to its corresponding D2D transmitter located
at a fixed distance away from it [149]. Hence, a D2D receiver
receives its desired signal from the D2D transmitter pair, and
interference from the UAV and other D2D transmitters. The
received signals at a downlink user include the desired signal
from the UAV and interference from all the D2D transmitters.
For this UAV-D2D network, we derived tractable analytical
expressions for the coverage and rate analysis for both static
and mobile UAV scenarios (see [10]). In Figure 11, we show
the average sum-rate versus the UAV altitude for different
values of the fixed distance, d0 , between a D2D transmit-
ter/receiver pair. As we can see from this figure, the average
sum-rate is maximized when the UAV’s altitude are around
300 m for d0 = 20 m. From Figure 11, we can see that for
altitude above 1300 m, the average sum-rate starts increasing.
This is due to the fact that, as the UAV’s altitude exceeds
a certain value, downlink users cannot be served while the
interference on D2D users decreases thus increasing the sum-
 0.4
0.35 Maximum system
Average sum rate (Gbps)
performance
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 backhauling [33]. Satellite links can provide wider backhaul
100 500 1000 1500 2000
UAV altitude (m)
Fig. 11: Average sum-rate in a UAV-D2D network vs. UAVs
altitude.
rate. Moreover, for altitudes within a range 300 m to 1300 m,
the sum-rate performance decreases due to the impact of LoS
interference from the UAV on the D2D users. Note that, the
optimal UAV’s altitude depends on d0 , as shown in Figure 11.
For instance, the sum-rate is maximized at a 400 m altitude
when d0 = 30 m.
We note that, in the literature, there are also additional
insightful results on the performance of UAV communication
systems. For instance, the work in [145] showed the downlink
coverage probability varies as a function of SIR threshold in a
network of multiple UAV-BSs. In [37], the authors presented
the impact of the UAV’s altitude on the minimum required
transmit power of UAV that ensures ground coverage. In [146],
the network throughput of a UAV-assisted cellular network is
determined as a function of the number of base stations.
E. Cellular Network Planning and Provisioning with UAVs
1) Challenges: Network planning involves addressing a
number of key problems such as base station positioning, traf-
fic estimation, frequency allocation, cell association, backhaul
management, signaling, and interference mitigation. Network
planning with UAVs is particularly important when UAVs
are used for coverage and capacity enhancement. In a UAV-
assisted cellular network, network planning becomes more
challenging due to the various properties of UAVs including
mobility, LoS interference, energy constraints, and wireless
backhaul connectivity. For example, joint radio and backhaul
designs and deployment are needed during network planning
with UAVs [150]. Furthermore, network planning in presence
of flying drone-UEs requires new considerations. On the one
hand, LoS interference stemming from a potentially massive
number of drone-UEs in uplink significantly impacts network
planning. On the other hand, ground base stations must be
equipped with appropriate types of antennas (considering e.g.,
radiation pattern and beam tilting) so as to serve drone-UEs
in downlink. Another difference between network planning for
traditional cellular networks and UAV systems is the amount
of signaling and overhead. Unlike static terrestrial networks,
in the UAV case, there is a need for dynamic signaling to
continuously track the location and number of UAVs in the
network. Such dynamic signaling may also be needed to
d0 =30 m
d0 =20 m register the various UAVs as users or base stations in the
cellular system. Clearly, handling such signaling and overhead
must be taken into account in cellular network planning with
UAVs.
Backhaul connectivity for flying UAVs is another key chal-
lenge in designing UAV communication systems. Due to aerial
nature of done base stations, wireless backhauling needs to
be employed for connecting them to a core network. WiFi
and satellite technologies are promising solutions for wireless
2500 coverage compared to WiFi. However, WiFi links have the
advantages of lower cost and lower latency compared to the
satellite backhauling. Other promising solutions for wireless
backhauling are millimeter wave and free space optical com-
munications (FSO) with ground stations [15], [151]–[153].
Aerial base stations can adjust their altitude, avoid obstacles,
and establish LoS communication links to ground stations.
Such LoS opportunity is a key requirement for millimeter
wave and FSO communications that can provide high ca-
pacity wireless backhauling services. We note that wireless
backhauling for UAVs is still a challenging problem in UAV
communications and further studies need to be done to find
an efficient backhauling solution.
2) State of the Art: Recent studies on UAV communica-
tions have addressed various problems pertaining to network
planning. For example, in [154], the authors investigated
the optimal user-UAV assignment for capacity enhancement
in UAV-assisted heterogeneous wireless networks. In [113],
the authors jointly optimized the locations and number of
UAVs for maximizing wireless coverage. The work in [155]
optimized the deployment and cell association of UAVs for
meeting the users’ rate requirements while using a minimum
UAVs’ transmit power. In [156], a delay-optimal cell planning
was proposed for a UAV-assisted cellular network. The work
in [157] proposed a novel approach for strategic placement
of multiple UAV-BSs in a large-scale network. In [120],
the authors proposed a backhaul aware optimal drone-BS
placement algorithm that maximizes the number of the served
users as well as the sum-rate for the users. The work in
[158] provided an analytical expression for the probability
of backhaul connectivity for UAVs that can use either an
LTE or a millimeter wave backhaul. In [99], a framework for
the use of UAVs as an aerial backhaul network for ground
base stations was proposed. In fact, the previous studies on
UAV network planning primarily analyzed problems related
to user association, 3D placement, backhaul connectivity, and
optimizing the number of UAVs that must be deployed in the
network. Also, there does not exist any concrete work focusing
on the signaling challenges.
3) Representative Result: In terms of network planning, in
[156], we studied the problem of optimal cell association for
delay minimization in a UAV-assisted cellular network. In par-
ticular, we considered a geographical area of size 4 km × 4 km
in which 4 UAVs (as aerial base stations) and 2 ground macro
base stations are deployed according to a traditional grid-based
 25
SNR−based cell planning
Average delay (s) Delay−optimal cell planning
20
15
10
5 ity, control, data processing, and payloads purposes [162].
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Standard deviation of the Gaussian distribution (m)
Fig. 12: Average network delay per 1Mb data transmission.
deployment. Within this area, ground users are distributed
according to a truncated Gaussian distribution with a standard
deviation σo , which is suitable to model a hotspot area. Here,
our main performance metric is transmission delay, which is
the time needed for transmitting a given number of bits to
ground users. Our goal is to provide an optimal cell planning
(e.g., cell association) for which the average network delay is
minimized.
In Figure 12, we compare the delay performance of our
proposed cell association with the classical SNR-based asso-
ciation. For users’ spatial distribution, we consider a truncated
Gaussian distribution with a center (1300 m, 1300 m), and
a standard deviation σo that varies from 200 m to 1200 m.
Lower values of σo correspond to cases in which users are
more congested around a hotspot center. This figure shows
that the proposed cell association significantly outperforms the
SNR-based association and yields up to a 72% lower average
delay. This is due to the fact that, in the proposed approach,
the impact of network congestion is taken into consideration.
In fact, unlike the SNR-based cell association, the proposed
approach avoid creating highly loaded cells that cause delay in
the network. Hence, compared to the SNR-based association
case, our approach is more robust against network congestion,
and it significantly reduces the average network delay.
Clearly, the performance of UAV-enabled wireless networks
significantly depends on the network planning. In general,
network planning impacts several key metrics of UAV net-
works such as throughput, delay (as also shown in Figure 12),
operational cost, and energy consumption.
F. Resource Management and Energy Efficiency
1) Challenges: Resource management and energy effi-
ciency require significant attention when operating UAVs in
key scenarios such as IoT, public safety, and UAV-assisted
cellular wireless networks. While resource management is
a major challenge for cellular networks [147], [159], [160],
UAVs introduce unique challenges due to: 1) Interplay be-
tween the UAVs’ flight time, energy, path plan, and spec-
tral efficiency, 2) Stringent energy and flight limitations for
UAVs, 3) LoS interference stemming from A2G and air-to-
air links, and 4) Unique mobility of UAVs. Hence, there
is a need for optimizing and managing resource allocation
in complex UAV-assisted wireless networks operating over
heterogeneous spectrum bands and co-existing with ground
networks. In fact, resource management and spectrum sharing
[161] processes must properly handle the inherent dynamics of
wireless networks such as time-varying interference, varying
traffic patterns, mobility, and energy constraints of the UAVs.
Naturally, flying drones have a limited amount of on-
board energy which must be used for transmission, mobil-
Consequently, the flight duration of drones is typically short
and insufficient for providing a long-term, continuous wireless
coverage. The energy consumption of the UAV also depends
on the role/mission of the UAV, weather conditions, and the
navigation path. Such energy constraints, in turn, lead to
limited flight and hover time durations. Hence, while designing
UAV communication systems, the energy and flight constraints
of UAVs need to be explicitly taken into account. Therefore,
the energy efficiency of UAVs requires careful consideration as
it significantly impact the performance of UAV-communication
systems. In fact, the limited on-board energy of UAVs is a key
constraint for deployment and mobility of UAVs in various
applications.
2) State of the Art: Energy efficiency and resource man-
agement in UAV-based wireless communication systems have
been studied from various perspectives. For instance, the work
in [163] provided an analytical framework for minimizing
the energy consumption of a fixed-wing UAV by determining
the optimal trajectory of the UAV. In [164], the authors
proposed an energy-efficient scheduling framework for coop-
erative UAVs communications. In [165], the authors studied
the energy efficiency of drones in target tracking scenarios
by adjusting the number of active drones. Energy harvesting
from vibrations and solar sources for small UAVs was inves-
tigated in [166]. The work in [167] proposed a framework for
optimizing transmission times in user-UAV communications
that maximizes the minimum throughput of the users. The
authors in [168] studied the use of antenna array on UAVs for
improving the SNR and consequently for reducing the required
transmit power. The work in [169] investigated an optimal
resource allocation scheme for an energy harvesting flying
access point. In [41], the problem of bandwidth and flight time
optimization of UAVs that service ground users was studied.
The work in [170] proposed a resource allocation framework
for enabling cache-enabled UAVs to effectively service users
over licensed and unlicensed bands.
Clearly, the performance of UAV communication systems
is significantly affected by battery lifetime of UAVs. The
flight time (i.e., battery lifetime) of a UAV depends on several
factors such as the energy source (e.g., battery, fuel, etc.,),
type, weight, speed, and trajectory of the UAV. In Table V,
we provide some examples for the battery lifetime of various
types of UAVs [31].
In general, the total energy consumption of a UAV is
composed of two main components [31], [163], [171]: 1)
Communication related energy, and 2) Propulsion energy. The
 Table V: Battery lifetime of UAVs. 200
Optimal bandwidth allocation

Average total flight time (min)

Size Weight Example Battery lifetime
Equal bandwidth allocation
Micro < 100 g Kogan Nano Drone 6-8 min
Very small 100 g–2 kg Parrot Disco 45 min 150
Small 2 kg–25 kg DJI Spreading Wings 18 min
Medium 25 kg–150 kg Scout B-330 UAV helicopter 180 min
Large > 150 kg Predator B 1800 min 100

related energy. The communication related energy is used for 50

various communication functions such as signal transmission,
computations, and signal processing. The propulsion energy
0
pertains to the mechanical energy consumption for move- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ment and hovering of UAVs. Typically, the propulsion energy Bandwidth (Mhz)
consumption is significantly more than the communication- Fig. 13: Average flight time vs. bandwidth.
related energy consumption. Next, we provide some baseline
propulsion energy consumption models for fixed-wing and 50 10
rotary-wing UAVs in a forward flight with speed V . 9

Energy for hovering (kJ)

Total bandwidth usage

For a fixed-wing UAV, the propulsion energy consumption
during a flight time T is given by [163]:
 a2 
E = T a1 V 3 + , (3)
V
where a1 and a2 are constants that depend on several factors
such as UAV’s weight, wing area, and air density [163].
For a rotary-wing UAV, the propulsion energy consumption
during a flight time T is given by [171]:
s !1/2
h  3V 2 V4 V2

E = T c1 1 + 2 + c2 1+ 4 − 2
q 4vo 2vo
1 i
+ do ρsAV 3 , (4)
2
where c1 and c2 are constants which depend on drone’s weight,
rotor’s speed, rotor disc area, blade angular velocity, and air
density. q is the tip speed of the rotor, do is the fuselage drag
ratio, vo is the mean rotor speed, ρ is air density, s is the rotor
solidity, and A is the rotor disc area.
3) Representative Result: In [41], we studied the resource
management problem with a focus on optimal bandwidth
allocation in UAV-enabled wireless networks. In particular, we
considered a scenario in which 5 UAVs are deployed as aerial
base stations over a rectangular area of size 1 km × 1 km
in order to provide service for 50 ground users. These UAVs
must fly (or hover) over the area until all the users receive their
desired service (in terms of number of bits) in the downlink.
Our goal is to optimally share the total available bandwidth
between the users such that the total flight time that the UAVs
need to service the users is minimized. Note that the flight
time is directly related to the energy consumption of UAVs.
Hence, minimizing the flight time of UAVs will effectively
improve their energy-efficiency.
Figure 13 shows the average total flight time of UAVs
versus the transmission bandwidth. Here, the total flight time
represents the time needed to provide service to all ground
users, each of which requires a 100 Mb data. We consider
two bandwidth allocation schemes, the optimal bandwidth
allocation, and an equal bandwidth allocation. Clearly, by
increasing the bandwidth, the total flight time that the UAVs
40 8
7
30 6
5
20 4
3
10 2
1
0
2 4 6 8 10
Number of UAVs
Fig. 14: UAV energy consumption (due to hover time) and
spectrum tradeoff.
require to service their users decreases. Naturally, a higher
bandwidth can provide a higher transmission rate and, thus,
users can be served within a shorter time duration. From Figure
13, we can observe that the optimal bandwidth allocation
scheme can lead to a 51% shorter flight time compared to the
equal bandwidth allocation case. This is because, by optimally
allocating the bandwidth to each user based on its load and
location, the total flight time of UAVs can be minimized.
In Figure 14, we show the total hovering energy consump-
tion of the UAVs as a function of number of UAVs. This result
corresponds to the interference-free scenario in which the
UAVs operate on different frequency bands. Hence, the total
bandwidth usage linearly increases by increasing the number
of UAVs. Clearly, the total energy consumption decreases as
the number of UAVs increases. A higher number of UAVs
corresponds to a higher number of cell partitions. Therefore,
the size of each cell partition decreases and the users will
have a shorter distance to the UAVs. Increasing the number of
UAVs leads to a higher transmission rate thus shorter hover
time and energy consumption. For instance, Figure 14 shows
that when the number of UAVs increases from 2 ot 6, the total
energy consumption of UAVs decreases by 53%. Nevertheless,
deploying more UAVs in interference-free scenario requires
using more bandwidth. Hence, there is a fundamental tradeoff
between the energy consumption of UAVs for hovering and
bandwidth efficiency.
 In summary, to efficiently employ UAVs for wireless net-
working applications, one must efficiently manage the use
of available resources such as energy, bandwidth, and time.
In fact, the performance of UAV-communication systems is
significantly affected by resource allocation strategies and
energy constraints of UAVs.
G. Drone-UEs in Wireless Networks
1) Challenges: Beyond the use of drones as aerial base
stations, they can also act as flying users as part of cellular net-
works. In particular, drone-UEs play key roles in air delivery
applications, such as Amazon prime air and in surveillance ap-
plications. Another important application of drone-UEs is vir-
tual reality (VR) [172]–[174] where drones capture any desired
information about a specific area and transmit it to remote VR
users. However, current cellular networks have been primarily
designed for supporting terrestrial devices whose character-
istics are significantly different from drone-UEs. Naturally,
classical wireless challenges such as performance analysis,
interference management, mobility management, and energy
and spectrum efficiency, will be further exacerbated by the use
of drone-UEs due to their relatively high altitude, stringent on-
board energy limitations, dynamic roles, potentially massive
deployment, and their nearly unconstrained mobility. In partic-
ular, incorporating drone-UEs in cellular networks introduces
unique challenges such as uplink interference management due
to massive deployment of drone-UEs, ground-to-air channel
modeling for BSs-to-drones communications, and designing
suitable BS’s antennas that can support high altitude (i.e., high
elevation angle) drones. In addition, drone-UEs will require
ultra-reliable, low latency communications (URLLC) so as
to swiftly control their operations, and ensure their safe and
effective navigation. Clearly, such a need for URLLC also
leads to new wireless networking challenges.
Furthermore, there is a need for effective handover man-
agement mechanisms to deploy an aerial network of flying
drone-UEs and drone-BSs. Handover is a key process in
wireless networks in which user association changes in order
to maintain the connectivity of mobile users. Meanwhile,
handover management will result in signaling overhead in
wireless networks [175]. Such handover signaling depends
on the size of the network, network mobility (user and BS
movements), locations of users and base stations, and handover
rate [175]–[177]. In UAV-based communication systems, han-
dover management needs to be done in order to reduce the
handover signaling and also to properly provide connectivity
for flying UAVs in beyond visual LoS (BVLoS) scenarios.
Handover management in UAV communications is signifi-
cantly more challenging than traditional cellular networks due
to the highly dynamic nature of drone-UEs and drone-BSs. In
particular, efficient handover mechanisms must be designed to
accommodate 3D movements of both drone-UEs a drone-BSs,
while ensuring low-latency communications and control when
serving drone-UEs. This handover design for flying devices
must be done jointly with existing handover mechanisms for
mobile ground users, such as vehicles.
Moreover, for drone-UEs, all of the aforementioned chal-
lenges must also take into account the fact that ground base
stations will have their antennas downtilted to maximize
coverage of ground users. As a result, it is imperative to
understand the impact of antenna tilt on the performance of
UAV-UEs, while also studying how one can overcome this
limitation via adaptive beamforming or new UAV-UE aware
design of ground base stations.
2) State of the Art: While the use case of UAV-BSs has
been widely studied in the literature, there are only a handful
of studies on drone-UEs scenarios. For example, the work in
[178] analyzed the coexistence of aerial and ground users in
cellular networks. In particular, the authors in [178] proposed
a framework for characterizing the downlink coverage perfor-
mance in a network that includes drone-UEs and terrestrial-
UEs. In [179], the authors derived an exact expression for
coverage probability of drone-UEs which are served by ground
BSs. The work in [54] analyzed the impact of both drone-
BSs and drone-UEs on uplink and downlink performance of
an LTE network. In [180], the authors studied the feasibility
of wireless connectivity for drone-UEs via LTE networks.
Moreover, in [180], propagation characteristics of BSs-to-
drones communications was studied using measurements and
ray tracing simulations. The work in [181] developed an
interference-aware path planning scheme for drone-UEs that
yields a minimum communication latency of drones as well as
their interference on ground users. In [182], the authors studied
the potential use of massive MIMO for supporting drone-
UEs with cellular networks. In particular, the work in [182]
studied the uplink and downlink performance of drone-UEs in
coexistence with ground users, while utilizing massive MIMO
in cellular networks. Finally, in [92], we studied how various
network parameters, such as downtilted antenna patterns and
network structure, impact the performance of drone-UEs with
caching capability.
3) Representative Result: Here, we show how uplink in-
terference stemming from drone-UEs impact the connectivity
of ground users. We consider a number of flying drone-UEs
which are uniformly deployed on a disk of radius 1000 m at
an altitude 100 m over a given geographical area. Meanwhile,
ground users attempt to connect to a ground base station
located at the center of the area. Figure 15 shows the uplink
connectivity probability of ground users (at a given radius
from the base station) as the number of drone-UEs varies.
Clearly, the connectivity of ground users decreases as the
number of drones increases. This is due to the dominant
LoS interference caused by the drone-UEs. For instance, the
connectivity probability at a 150 m radius decreases by 18%
when the number of drone-UEs increases from 5 to 15. Our
result in Figure 15 highlights the need for adopting effective
interference management techniques in drone-UEs scenarios
[7], [10], [183]–[185].
H. Summary of Lessons Learned
In summary, the main lessons learned from this section
include:
 Connectivity probability of ground users 1 and terrestrial base station deployment, frequency plan-
At 100 m radius
At 150 m radius
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
5 10 15 20 25
Number of drone−UEs
Fig. 15: Impact of drone-UEs on connectivity of ground users.
• Despite promising roles of UAVs in wireless networks, a
number of design challenges need to be studied. In fact,
each role has its own challenges and opportunities. For
instance, for flying base stations, one prominent challenge
is to maximize network performance under unique UAV
features and constraints such as flight time, air-to-ground
channel models, and mobility. The key challenges for
cellular-connected UAV-UEs include co-existence with
ground networks, mobility and handover management,
and interference mitigation. Meanwhile, in flying ad-hoc
networks, routing and path planning for UAVs are among
important design challenges.
• The design of UAV-enabled wireless networks is affected
by channel models used for air-to-ground air-to-air com-
munications. Channel modeling in UAV communications
is an important research direction and can be done
using various approaches such as ray-tracing technique,
extensive measurements, and machine learning.
• Optimizing the 3D locations of drones is a key design
consideration as it significantly impacts the performance
drone-enabled wireless networks. Drone deployment is
particularly of important in use cases for coverage and
capacity enhancement, public safety, IoT applications,
and caching. While optimizing the drones’ positions,
various factors such as A2G channel, users’ locations,
transmit power, and obstacles must be taken into account.
• In order to optimize the trajectory of UAVs, several
constraints and parameters must be considered. The
UAV’s trajectory is determined based on the users’ QoS
requirements, the UAV’s energy consumption, type of the
UAV, as well as shape and locations of obstacles in the
environment.
• Performance evaluation of a UAV-enabled wireless net-
work is needed in order to capture key network design
tradeoffs. The performance of UAV communication sys-
tems can be analyzed in terms of various metrics such as
coverage probability, area spectral efficiency, reliability,
and latency. These metrics can be linked to unique UAV
parameters such as its altitude, trajectory, and hover time.
• Network planning in a UAV-assisted wireless networks
requires addressing various problems pertaining to aerial
ning, interference management, and user association.
Network planning must be efficiently done so as to
maximize the overall UAV system performance in terms
of coverage, capacity, and operational costs.
• Given the limited on-board energy of drones, the energy
efficiency aspects of drone-based communication systems
require careful consideration. In fact, the flight time and
transmit power constraints of drones will significantly im-
pact the performance of drone-enabled wireless networks.
A drone’s energy consumption can be minimized by
developing energy-efficient deployment, path planning,
and drone communication designs.
• The use of flying UAV-UEs in a cellular-connected UAVs
scenario introduces new challenges. For instance, tra-
ditional cellular networks with downtilted base station
antennas that have been primary designed for serving
ground users, may not be able to effectively support
connectivity and low-latency requirements of UAV-UEs.
In fact, there is need for designing an efficient cellular-
connected UAV systems that can support ultra-reliable
and low latency communications requirements, mobility
and handover management, and seamless connectivity for
flying UAV-UEs.
IV. O PEN P ROBLEMS AND F UTURE O PPORTUNITIES FOR
UAV- BASED W IRELESS C OMMUNICATION AND
N ETWORKING
In the previous section, we have outlined the general re-
search directions and challenges of wireless communications
with UAVs. The next natural step is to discuss open research
problems in each one of the covered areas, in order to shed
light on future opportunities, as done in this section. Despite a
considerable number of studies on UAV communications, there
are still many key open problems that must be investigated.
A. UAV Channel Modeling
For air-to-ground channel modeling, there are several key
open problems. First and foremost, there is a need for more
realistic channel models that stem from real-world measure-
ments [55]. While efforts in this regard already started, most
of them remain limited to a single UAV or to very specific
environments. A broader campaign of channel measurements
that can cut across urban and rural areas, as well as various
operational environments (e.g., weather conditions) is needed.
Such experimental work can complement the existing, mostly
ray tracing simulation based results. Moreover, the simulation
results can also be expanded to model small-scale fading
A2G communications. In addition, as UAVs become more
commonly used as flying base stations, drone-UEs, or even for
backhaul support, one must have more insights on air-to-air
channel modeling. In particular, there is a need for an accurate
UAV-to-UAV channel model that can capture time-variation
of channel and Doppler effect due to mobility of UAVs.
Furthermore, multipath fading in air-to-air communications
 Table VI: Challenges, open problems, and tools for designing UAV-enabled wireless networks.
Research Direction Key References Challenges and Open Problems Mathematical Tools and Techniques
[11], [29], [55], [103], • Air-to-ground path loss. • Ray-tracing techniques.
Channel Modeling [104], [106]–[111], • Air-to-air channel modeling. • Machine learning.
[118], [186], [187] • Small scale fading. • Extensive measurements.
[11]–[13], [15], [16], • Deployment in presence of terrestrial networks. • Centralized optimization theory.
Deployment [34], [35], [113], [115], • Energy-aware deployment. • Facility location theory.
[119], [122]–[124] • Joint 3D deployment and resource allocation.
• Analyzing heterogeneous aerial-terrestrial networks. • Probability theory.
Performance [10], [12], [116],
• Performance analysis under mobility considerations. • Stochastic geometry.
Analysis [138], [143]–[147]
• Capturing spatial and temporal correlations. • Information theory
• Backhaul-aware cell planning. • Centralized optimization theory.
Cellular Network [113], [120], [154],
• Optimizing number of UAVs. • Facility location theory.
Planning with UAVs [155], [158]
• Traffic-based cell association. • Optimal transport theory.
• Analysis of signaling and overhead.
• Bandwidth and flight time optimization. • Centralized optimization theory.
Resource Management [162]–[166], [168],
• Joint trajectory and transmit power optimization. • Optimal transport theory.
and Energy Efficiency [169], [188]
• Spectrum sharing with cellular networks. • Game theory and machine learning.
• Multi-dimensional resource management.
• Energy-efficient trajectory optimization. • Centralized optimization theory.
Trajectory
[36], [127]–[138], [189] • Joint trajectory and delay optimization. • Machine learning.
Optimization
• Reliable communication with path planning.
• Effective connectivity with downtilted ground base stations. • Centralized optimization theory.
Cellular Connected • Interference management. • Machine learning.
[54], [178]–[181]
UAV-UEs • Handover management. • Optimal transport theory.
• Ground-to-air channel modeling. • Game theory.
• Ultra reliable, low latency communication and control. • Stochastic geometry.

needs to be characterized while considering UAVs’ altitude
as well as antennas’ movement.
B. UAV Deployment
In terms of open problems for UAV deployment, there is
a need for new solutions to optimal 3D placement of UAVs
while accounting for their unique features. For instance, one
of the key open problems is the optimal 3D placement of
UAVs in presence of terrestrial networks. For instance, there
is a need to study how UAVs must be deployed in coexistence
with cellular networks while considering mutual interference
between such aerial and terrestrial systems. Other key open
problems in deployment include:
1) Joint optimization of deployment and bandwidth alloca-
tion for low latency communications: In order to minimize the
maximum transmission latency of users which are served by
drone-BSs, one problem is to jointly optimize the 3D locations
of drone-BSs and bandwidth allocation. In particular, given a
number of drone-BSs, locations of users, and the total amount
of bandwidth available for serving users, one important open
problem is to find the optimal location of each drone-BS and
its transmission bandwidth such that the maximum downlink
transmission latency of the users is minimized.
2) Joint optimal 3D placement and cell association for flight
time minimization: The flight time of a drone-BS that provides
wireless services to users depends on many factors such as
the load and number of users connected to the drone-BS as
well as the downlink transmission rate. In this problem, given
the number of drone-BSs, the total flight time of drone-BSs
needed for completely servicing users should be minimized
by jointly optimizing the locations of drone-BSs and user-to-
drone associations.
3) Obstacle aware deployment of UAVs for maximizing
wireless coverage: The coverage performance of drone-BSs
that serve ground users is affected by obstacles. One key
open problem here is to maximize the total coverage areas
of drone-BSs by optimal placement of drone-BSs based on
the locations of users and obstacles. In particular, given the
locations of ground users and obstacles in the environment,
the 3D positions of drone-BSs can be determined such that
the maximum number of users are covered by drones. This
is particularly useful if the drones operate at high frequency
bands (e.g., at millimeter wave frequencies).
C. UAV Trajectory Optimization
While the potential mobility of UAVs provides promising
opportunities, it introduces new challenges and technical prob-
lems. In a UAV-assisted wireless network, the trajectory of
UAVs needs to be optimized with respect to key performance
metrics such as throughput, energy and spectral efficiency,
and delay. Furthermore, trajectory optimization problems must
account for the dynamic aspects and type of UAVs. While
there has been a number of attractive studies on UAV trajectory
optimization, there are still several open problems that include:
1) UAV trajectory optimization based on the mobility patterns
of ground users for maximizing the coverage performance, 2)
Obstacle aware trajectory optimization of UAVs considering
users’ delay constraints and UAVs’ energy consumption, 3)
Trajectory optimization for maximizing reliability and mini-
mizing latency in UAV-enabled wireless networks, and 4) Joint
control, communication, and trajectory optimization of UAVs
for flight time minimization. Finally, for cellular-connected
UAV-UEs, optimizing trajectory while minimizing interference
to the ground users and being cognizant of the downtilt of
the antennas of the ground base stations is yet another open
problem.
D. Performance Analysis
For performance analysis, there are numerous problems that
can still be studied. For instance, one must completely charac-
terize the performance of UAV-enabled wireless networks, that
consist of both aerial and terrestrial users and base stations, in
terms of coverage and capacity. In particular, there is a need
for tractable expressions for coverage probability and spectral
efficiency in heterogeneous aerial-terrestrial networks. More-
over, fundamental performance analysis needs to be done to
capture inherent tradeoffs between spectral efficiency and and
energy efficiency in UAV networks. Another open problem is
to evaluate the performance of UAV-enabled wireless networks
while incorporating the mobility of UAVs. The fundamental
analysis of such mobile wireless networks involves capturing
the spatial and temporal variations of various performance
metrics in the network. For instance, there is a need to study
how the trajectory of UAVs impacts their performance in
terms of throughput, latency, and energy efficiency. Finally,
the effect of dynamic scheduling on the performance of UAV
communication systems can be analyzed.
E. Planning Cellular Networks with UAVs
An efficient network planning with UAVs requires address-
ing a number of key problems. For example, what is the
minimum number of UAVs needed to provide a full coverage
for given a geographical area that is partially covered by
ground base stations. Solving such problems is particularity
challenging when the geographical area of interest does not
have a regular geometric shape (e.g., disk or square). Another
design problem is the backhaul-aware deployment of UAVs
while using them as aerial base stations. In this case, while
deploying UAV-BSs, one must consider both the backhaul
connectivity of UAVs and their users’ quality-of-service. Other
important open problems include: 1) performing efficient
frequency planning when both ground and aerial BSs and users
exist, 2) developing new approaches to dynamically provision
UAVs on the fly whenever they join network, and 3) designing
robust and adaptive network planning techniques that can
account for highly mobile drone-UEs. Last but not least, it
is imperative to analyze the signaling overhead associated
with the deployment of both UAV-BSs and UAV-UEs, while
characterizing how that overhead can affect the performance.
F. Resource Management in UAV Networks
Resource management is another key research problem in
UAV-based communication systems. In particular, there is a
need for a framework that can dynamically manage various
resources including bandwidth, energy, transmit power, UAV’s
flight time, and number of UAVs, among others. For instance,
how to adaptively adjust the transmit power and trajectory of
a flying UAV that serves ground users. In this case, a key
problem is to provide optimal bandwidth allocation mecha-
nisms that can capture the impact of UAVs’ locations, mobility,
LoS interference, and traffic distribution of ground users. Also,
there is a need for designing efficient scheduling techniques
to mitigate interference between aerial and terrestrial base
stations in a UAV-assisted cellular network. In addition, one
must analyze dynamic spectrum sharing in a heterogeneous
network of both flying and ground base stations. Finally,
adopting suitable frequency bands (e.g., WiFi, LTE bands) for
UAV operations is of important design problems.
G. Drone-UEs Scenarios
Naturally, flying drones that act as users within cellular
networks can introduce new design challenges. In particular,
while using drone-UEs in wireless networks, one must ac-
count for mobility, LoS interference, handover, energy con-
straints, and low-latency control of drones. In this regard,
key open problems in drone-UEs communications include: 1)
developing robust interference mitigation techniques for mas-
sive drone-UEs deployment scenarios, 2) designing dynamic
handover mechanisms to manage frequent handovers due to
mobility, 3) providing accurate ground-to-air channel models
for BSs-to-drone communications, 4) proposing new schedul-
ing schemes while considering battery limitations of drones,
5) designing effective solutions that allow meeting URLLC
requirements for drone-UEs, and 6) analyzing application-
specific quality-of-service measures.
H. Lessons Learned
Despite the notable number of works on UAV-based wireless
communications, there are many fundamental open problems
that needs be studied. Key open problems in UAV networks
exist in various areas such as comprehensive channel model
for UAV communications, energy-aware deployment, analy-
sis of signaling and overhead, reliable communications with
path planning, low latency control, interference and handover
management.
V. A NALYTICAL F RAMEWORKS TO E NABLE UAV- BASED
C OMMUNICATIONS
Having identified the research directions and their associated
challenges and open problems, next, we turn our attention
to the analytical frameworks needed to design, analyze, and
optimize the use of UAVs for wireless networking purposes.
Indeed, this research area is highly interdisciplinary and it
will require drawing on tools from conventional fields such
as communication theory, optimization theory, and network
design, as well as emerging fields such as stochastic geometry,
machine learning, and game theory, as listed in Figure 16.
A. Centralized Optimization Theory for UAV Communication
During the first phase of deployment of UAVs as flying
base stations, despite their inherent autonomy, we envision
that UAVs will initially rely on centralized control. This is
particularly important for applications such as cellular network
capacity enhancement, in which cellular operators may not
be willing to relinquish control of their network during the
early trials of a technology such as UAVs. In such scenarios,
many of the identified research problems will very naturally
 Optimization Theory
Deployment
Game Theory Performance analysis Machine Learning
Path planning
Resource allocation
Flight time optimization
Cell association
Energy efficiency Transport Theory
Stochastic Geometry
Fig. 16: Mathematical tools for designing UAV communication
systems.
involve the need to formulate and solve challenging centralized
optimization problems. Such problems can be run at the level
of a cloud (e.g., as is done in a cloud-assisted radio access
network) [190] or at the level of a ground macrocell base
station that is capable to control some of the UAVs.
It is worth noting that lessons learned from conventional
terrestrial cellular network optimization problem can prove to
be very handy in UAV communication. For example, classical
approaches such as successive convex optimization [191] can
be used for optimizing the 3D location and trajectory of UAVs.
However, many of the problems identified here will require
more advanced optimization techniques. For example, when
analyzing user association problems, one will naturally end
up with challenging mixed integer programming problems,
that cannot be solved using traditional algorithms, such as
those used for convex optimization. In this regard, advanced
mathematical tools such as optimal transport theory [192] can
provide tractable solutions for a wide range of cell association
problems that seek to optimize UAV’s flight time, throughput,
and energy-efficiency of UAV-enabled wireless networks.
B. Optimal Transport Theory for UAV Networks
Optimal transport theory [192] can enable deriving tractable
solutions for the notoriously difficult optimization problems
that accompany the problems of user association, resource al-
location, and flight time optimization in UAV-enabled wireless
networks. By exploiting new ideas from probability theory and
statistics, optimal transport theory enables capturing generic
distributions of wireless devices, which, in turn, allows a
much deeper fundamental analysis of network performance
optimization than existing heuristic works. Optimal transport
is a field in mathematics that studies scenarios in which goods
are transported between various locations.
One popular example is the so-called ore mining problem.
In this illustrative example, we are given a collection of mines
mining iron ore, and a collection of factories which consume
the iron ore that the mines produce. The goal is to find the
optimal way to transport (move) the ore from the mines to the
factories, to minimize a certain cost function that captures key
factors such as the costs of transportation, the location of the
mines, and the productivity of the factories. Optimal transport
theory aims to find an optimal mapping between any two
arbitrary probability measures. In particular, in a semi-discrete
optimal transport problem, a continuous probability density
function must be mapped to a discrete probability measure.
Remarkably, such mathematical framework can be used to
solve a number of complex problems in UAV communications.
For instance, in a semi-discrete optimal transport case, the
optimal transport map will optimally partition the continuous
distribution and assign each partition to one point in the
discrete probability measure. Clearly, such optimal partitions
can be considered as optimal cell association in UAV-to-user
(in UAV base station scenarios) and BS-to-UAV (in drone-
UE cases) communications. Therefore, within the framework
of optimal transport theory, one can address cell association
problems for any general spatial distribution of users. In fact,
optimal transport theory enables the derivation of tractable
solutions to variety of user association resource allocation,
energy management, and flight optimization problems in UAV-
enabled wireless networks. In particular, given any spatial
distribution of ground users (that can be estimated using UAV-
based aerial imaging), one can exploit optimal transport theory
to derive the optimal cell association and resource management
schemes that lead to the maximum system performance in
terms of energy efficiency, throughput, and delay under explicit
flight time constraints of UAVs [41], [156].
C. Performance Analysis using Stochastic Geometry
Stochastic geometry techniques have emerged as powerful
tools for performance analysis of ad-hoc and cellular networks
[148]. The key principle is to endow the locations devices, e.g.,
users and base stations, as a point process, and then evaluate
key performance metrics such as coverage, rate, throughput,
or delay. While stochastic geometry has been utilized for the
analysis of two-dimensional heterogeneous cellular networks,
it can be potentially adopted to characterize the performance of
3D UAV networks [145]. Nevertheless, one must use tractable
and realistic point processes to model the locations of UAVs.
For instance, the Binomial and Poisson cluster processes [193]
are more suitable when UAVs are deployed at user hotspots,
and the goal is to serve a massive number of users in a
specific area. The processes with repulsion between points,
e.g., Matern hard core process [148], is more suitable for
the a case in which UAVs are not allowed to be closer
than a certain distance. Therefore, by exploiting tools from
stochastic geometry and adopting a suitable point process
model, the performance of UAV-enabled wireless networks
can be characterized. This, in turn, can reveal the key design
insights and inherent tradeoffs in UAV communications.
D. Machine Learning
Machine learning enables systems to improve their per-
formance by automatically learning from their environment
and their past experience. Machine learning can be poten-
tially leveraged to design and optimize UAV-based wireless
communication systems [194], [195]. For instance, using
reinforcement learning algorithms, drones can dynamically
adjust their positions, flight directions, and motion control to
service their ground users. In this case, drones are able to
rapidly adapt to dynamic environments in a self-organizing
way, and autonomously optimize their trajectory. In addition,
by leveraging neural networks techniques and performing data
analytics, one can predict the ground users’ behavior and
effectively deploy and operate drones. For example, machine
learning tools enable predicting users’ mobility and their load
distribution that can be used to perform optimal deployment
and path planning of drones. Such information about users’
mobility pattern and traffic distribution is particularity useful in
designing cache-enabled drone systems. Machine learning can
also be used to learn the radio environment maps and to build a
3D channel model using UAVs. Such radio environment maps
can be subsequently used to optimally deploy and operate UAV
communication systems.
E. Game Theory
Distributed decision making will be an integral component
of UAV networks. As such, along with the use of machine
learning, game theory [196], [197] will provide important
foundations for distributed decision making in UAV-based
wireless networks. Game theory is a natural tool to analyze
resource management and trajectory optimization problems
in which the decision is done at the level of each UAV. In
such cases, each UAV will have its own, individual objective
function that captures its own QoS. Here, the inherent cou-
pling of the UAVs objective functions due to factors such as
interference or collisions, strongly motivate the use of game-
theoretic analysis for resource management. In a UAV-enabled
network, distributed resource management problems will now
involve different types of players (UAVs, BSs, UEs), as
well as multi-dimensional strategy spaces that include energy,
spectrum, hover/flight times, and 3D locations. This, in turn,
will motivate the use of advanced game-theoretic mechanisms,
such as the emerging notion of a multi-game [198], that go
beyond classical game-theoretic constructs that are used for
conventional terrestrial resource management problems [199].
In particular, multi-games allow capturing the fact that, in a
UAV network, multiple games may co-exist, such as a game
among UAVs and a game among terrestrial BSs, and, as such,
analysis of such multi-game scenarios is needed.
Moreover, when UAVs are supposed to operate au-
tonomously, it is imperative to jointly optimize their com-
munication and control systems. Such an optimization must
be distributed and done at the level of each individual, au-
tonomous UAV, thus again motivating the use of game theory.
Here, stochastic differential games [200] will be an important
tool since they can naturally integrate both communication and
control, whereby communication objectives can be included
in utility functions while the control system dynamics can
be posed as differential equation constraints. Moreover, the
sheer scale of ultra dense cellular networks with a massive
number of UAVs will require tools to analyze the asymptotic
performance of the system. To this end, tools from mean-field
game theory [201]–[203] are useful to perform such large-
system analysis and gain insights on how energy efficiency,
spectrum efficiency, and the overall network QoS can scale
with the number of users.
Moreover, cooperative behavior is another important aspect
of UAV communications. For instance, how to dynamically
form swarms of UAVs and enable their coordination is an
important open problem. To address it, one can leverage tools
from coalitional game theory, such as those developed in
[204]–[206] for wireless networks, in general, and in [121],
[207], for UAV systems, in particular. Other relevant game-
theoretic tools include contract theory [208], to design incen-
tive mechanisms and matching theory [209] to study network
planning problems. In addition, multiple synergies between
machine learning, optimal transport theory, optimization the-
ory, and game theory can be built and analyzed for a variety
of problems in UAV communication systems.
F. Lessons Learned and Summary
In Table VI, we summarize the key challenges, open prob-
lems, important references, and analytical tools to analyze,
optimize, and design UAV-enabled wireless networks.
In summary, in order to address the fundamental challenges
in UAV communication systems and efficiently use UAVs for
wireless networking applications, we need to leverage various
mathematical tools. In this regard, the following mathematical
tools can be utilized: 1) Optimization theory can be used for
addressing problems related to deployment and path planning,
2) Stochastic geometry for performance analysis, 3) Optimal
transport theory for cell association and load balancing prob-
lems, 4) Machine learning for motion control and channel
modeling, and 5) Game theory for resource management and
trajectory optimization problems.
VI. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS
In this tutorial, we have provided a comprehensive study on
the use of UAVs in wireless networks. We have investigated
two main use cases of UAVs, namely, aerial base stations and
cellular-connected users, i.e., UAV-UEs. For each use case of
UAVs, we have explored key challenges, applications, and
fundamental open problems. Moreover, we have presented
the major state of the art pertaining to challenges in UAV-
enabled wireless networks, along with insightful representative
results. Meanwhile, we have described mathematical tools and
techniques needed for meeting UAV challenges as well as
analyzing UAV-enabled wireless networks. Such an in-depth
study on UAV communication and networking provides unique
guidelines for optimizing, designing, and operating UAV-based
wireless communication systems.
R EFERENCES
[1] K. P. Valavanis and G. J. Vachtsevanos, Handbook of unmanned aerial
vehicles. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2014.
[2] R. Austin, Unmanned aircraft systems: UAVS design, development and
deployment. John Wiley & Sons, 2011, vol. 54.
[3] R. W. Beard and T. W. McLain, Small unmanned aircraft: Theory and
practice. Princeton university press, 2012.
 [4] M. Asadpour, B. V. den Bergh, D. Giustiniano, K. A. Hummel,
S. Pollin, and B. Plattner, “Micro aerial vehicle networks: an exper-
imental analysis of challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Communica-
tions Magazine, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 141–149, July 2014.
[5] R. S. Stansbury, M. A. Vyas, and T. A. Wilson, “A survey of UAS
technologies for command, control, and communication (C3),” in
Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Springer, 2008, pp. 61–78.
[6] A. Puri, “A survey of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for traffic
surveillance,” Department of computer science and engineering, Uni-
versity of South Florida, 2005.
[7] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Mobile unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) for energy-efficient Internet of Things commu-
nications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16,
no. 11, pp. 7574–7589, Nov. 2017.
[8] R. Yaliniz, A. El-Keyi, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Efficient 3-D place-
ment of an aerial base station in next generation cellular networks,”
in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC),
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May. 2016.
[9] I. Bucaille, S. Hethuin, A. Munari, R. Hermenier, T. Rasheed, and
S. Allsopp, “Rapidly deployable network for tactical applications:
Aerial base station with opportunistic links for unattended and tem-
porary events absolute example,” in Proc. of IEEE Military Communi-
cations Conference (MILCOM), San Diego, CA, USA, Nov. 2013.
[10] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Unmanned
aerial vehicle with underlaid device-to-device communications: Perfor-
mance and tradeoffs,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3949–3963, June 2016.
[11] A. Hourani, K. Sithamparanathan, and S. Lardner, “Optimal LAP alti-
tude for maximum coverage,” IEEE Wireless Communication Letters,
vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 569–572, Dec. 2014.
[12] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Drone small
cells in the clouds: Design, deployment and performance analysis,”
in Proc. of IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM),
San Diego, CA, USA, Dec. 2015.
[13] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Efficient de-
ployment of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles for optimal wireless
coverage,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1647–
1650, Aug. 2016.
[14] Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Wireless communications with
unmanned aerial vehicles: opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Com-
munications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 36–42, May 2016.
[15] I. Bor-Yaliniz and H. Yanikomeroglu, “The new frontier in ran het-
erogeneity: Mui-tier drone-cells,” IEEE Communications Magazine,
vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 48–55, 2016.
[16] S. Rohde and C. Wietfeld, “Interference aware positioning of aerial
relays for cell overload and outage compensation,” in Proc. of IEEE
Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC), Quebec, QC, Canada, Sept.
2012.
[17] E. Yanmaz, S. Yahyanejad, B. Rinner, H. Hellwagner, and C. Bettstet-
ter, “Drone networks: Communications, coordination, and sensing,” Ad
Hoc Networks, vol. 68, pp. 1–15, 2018.
[18] Facebook, “Connecting the world from the sky,” Facebook Technical
Report, 2014.
[19] K. Kamnani and C. Suratkar, “A review paper on Google Loon tech-
nique,” International Journal of Research In Science & Engineering,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 167–171, 2015.
[20] Q. Wu, J. Xu, and R. Zhang, “UAV-enabled aerial base station (BS)
III/III: Capacity characterization of UAV-enabled two-user broadcast
channel,” available online: arxiv.org/abs/1801.00443, 2018.
[21] Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Common throughput maximization in UAV-
enabled OFDMA systems with delay consideration,” available online:
arxiv.org/abs/1801.00444, 2018.
[22] A. Al-Fuqaha, M. Guizani, M. Mohammadi, M. Aledhari, and
M. Ayyash, “Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies,
protocols, and applications,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutori-
als, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2347–2376, 2015.
[23] T. Park, N. Abuzainab, and W. Saad, “Learning how to communicate
in the Internet of Things: Finite resources and heterogeneity,” IEEE
Access, vol. 4, Nov. 2016.
[24] A. Zanella, N. Bui, A. Castellani, L. Vangelista, and M. Zorzi, “Internet
of Things for smart cities,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 1,
no. 1, pp. 22–32, Feb. 2014.
[25] A. Ferdowsi and W. Saad, “Deep learning-based dynamic watermarking
for secure signal authentication in the Internet of Things,” in Proc.
of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Kansas
City, MO, USA, May 2018.
[26] G. Ding, Q. Wu, L. Zhang, Y. Lin, T. A. Tsiftsis, and Y. D. Yao, “An
amateur drone surveillance system based on the cognitive Internet of
Things,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 29–35,
Jan. 2018.
[27] “Paving the path to 5G: Optimizing commercial LTE
networks for drone communication,” available online:
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/09/06/paving-path-5g-
optimizing-commercial-lte-networks-drone-communication.
[28] J. Stewart, “Google tests drone deliveries in project wing trials,” BBC
World Service Radio, 2014.
[29] A. Hourani, S. Kandeepan, and A. Jamalipour, “Modeling air-to-ground
path loss for low altitude platforms in urban environments,” in Proc. of
IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), Austin,
TX, USA, Dec. 2014.
[30] D. Gettinger and A. H. Michel, “Drone sightings and close encounters:
An analysis,” Center for the Study of the Drone, Bard College,
Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA, 2015.
[31] A. Fotouhi, H. Qiang, M. Ding, M. Hassan, L. G. Giordano, A. Garcia-
Rodriguez, and J. Yuan, “Survey on uav cellular communications: Prac-
tical aspects, standardization advancements, regulation, and security
challenges,” available online: arxiv.org/abs/1809.01752, 2018.
[32] C. Stöcker, R. Bennett, F. Nex, M. Gerke, and J. Zevenbergen, “Review
of the current state of UAV regulations,” Remote sensing, vol. 9, no. 5,
p. 459, 2017.
[33] S. Chandrasekharan, K. Gomez, A. Al-Hourani, S. Kandeepan,
T. Rasheed, L. Goratti, L. Reynaud, D. Grace, I. Bucaille, T. Wirth, and
S. Allsopp, “Designing and implementing future aerial communication
networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 26–34,
May 2016.
[34] M. Alzenad, A. El-Keyi, F. Lagum, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “3-D
placement of an unmanned aerial vehicle base station (UAV-BS) for
energy-efficient maximal coverage,” IEEE Wireless Communications
Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 434–437, Aug. 2017.
[35] M. Alzenad, A. El-Keyi, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “3-D placement of an
unmanned aerial vehicle base station for maximum coverage of users
with different QoS requirements,” IEEE Wireless Communications
Letters, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 38–41, Feb. 2018.
[36] Q. Wu, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Joint trajectory and communication
design for multi-uav enabled wireless networks,” IEEE Transactions
on Wireless Communications, Early access, 2018.
[37] A. M. Hayajneh, S. A. R. Zaidi, D. C. McLernon, and M. Ghogho,
“Drone empowered small cellular disaster recovery networks for re-
silient smart cities,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on
Sensing, Communication and Networking (SECON Workshops), June
2016.
[38] V. Sharma, R. Sabatini, and S. Ramasamy, “UAVs assisted delay opti-
mization in heterogeneous wireless networks,” IEEE Communications
Letters, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 2526–2529, Dec. 2016.
[39] J. Lyu, Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Placement optimization of
UAV-mounted mobile base stations,” IEEE Communications Letters,
vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 604–607, March 2017.
[40] S. Jeong, O. Simeone, and J. Kang, “Mobile edge computing via
a UAV-mounted cloudlet: Optimal bit allocation and path planning,”
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Early access, 2017.
[41] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Wireless com-
munication using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): Optimal transport
theory for hover time optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 8052–8066, Dec. 2017.
[42] Y. Zeng, X. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Trajectory optimization for completion
time minimization in UAV-enabled multicasting,” available online:
arxiv.org/abs/1708.06478, 2017.
[43] P. Yang, X. Cao, C. Yin, Z. Xiao, X. Xi, and D. Wu, “Proactive
drone-cell deployment: Overload relief for a cellular network under
flash crowd traffic,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 2877–2892, Oct. 2017.
[44] M. A. Khan, A. Safi, I. M. Qureshi, and I. U. Khan, “Flying ad-hoc
networks (FANETs): A review of communication architectures, and
routing protocols,” in Proc. of IEEE First International Conference on
 Latest trends in Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies
(INTELLECT), Karachi, Pakistan, Nov. 2017.
[45] W. Zafar and B. M. Khan, “Flying ad-hoc networks: Technological and
social implications,” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 35,
no. 2, pp. 67–74, June 2016.
[46] I. Bekmezci, O. K. Sahingoz, and Ş. Temel, “Flying ad-hoc networks
(FANETs): A survey,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1254–1270,
2013.
[47] O. K. Sahingoz, “Networking models in flying ad-hoc networks
(FANETs): Concepts and challenges,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic
Systems, vol. 74, no. 1-2, pp. 513–527, 2014.
[48] N. H. Motlagh, T. Taleb, and O. Arouk, “Low-altitude unmanned aerial
vehicles-based internet of things services: Comprehensive survey and
future perspectives,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 3, no. 6, pp.
899–922, Dec. 2016.
[49] X. Cao, P. Yang, M. Alzenad, X. Xi, D. Wu, and H. Yanikomeroglu,
“Airborne communication networks: A survey,” IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, Early access, 2018.
[50] S. Karapantazis and F. Pavlidou, “Broadband communications via
high-altitude platforms: a survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys &
Tutorials, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 2–31, 2005.
[51] S. Sekander, H. Tabassum, and E. Hossain, “Multi-tier drone architec-
ture for 5G/B5G cellular networks: Challenges, trends, and prospects,”
IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 96–103, 2018.
[52] S. Hayat, E. Yanmaz, and R. Muzaffar, “Survey on unmanned aerial
vehicle networks for civil applications: A communications viewpoint.”
IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2624–
2661, 2016.
[53] L. Gupta, R. Jain, and G. Vaszkun, “Survey of important issues in UAV
communication networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,
vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1123–1152, 2016.
[54] B. V. D. Bergh, A. Chiumento, and S. Pollin, “LTE in the sky: trading
off propagation benefits with interference costs for aerial nodes,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 44–50, May 2016.
[55] W. Khawaja, I. Guvenc, D. Matolak, U.-C. Fiebig, and N. Schnecken-
berger, “A survey of air-to-ground propagation channel modeling for
unmanned aerial vehicles,” available online: arxiv.org/abs/1801.01656,
2018.
[56] S. Samarakoon, M. Bennis, W. Saad, M. Debbah, and M. Latva-aho,
“Ultra dense small cell networks: Turning density into energy effi-
ciency,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34,
no. 5, pp. 1267–1280, May 2016.
[57] O. Semiari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and Z. Dawy, “Inter-operator resource
management for millimeter wave multi-hop backhaul networks,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 5258–
5272, Aug. 2017.
[58] O. Semiari, W. Saad, and M. Bennis, “Joint millimeter wave and mi-
crowave resources allocation in cellular networks with dual-mode base
stations,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16,
no. 7, pp. 4802–4816, July 2017.
[59] Y. Zhang, L. Song, W. Saad, Z. Dawy, and Z. Han, “Contract-based
incentive mechanisms for device-to-device communications in cellu-
lar networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2144–2155, Oct. 2015.
[60] O. Semiari, W. Saad, S. Valentin, M. Bennis, and H. V. Poor, “Context-
aware small cell networks: How social metrics improve wireless
resource allocation,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 5927–5940, Nov. 2015.
[61] I. Bucaille, S. Hethuin, A. Munari, R. Hermenier, T. Rasheed, and
S. Allsopp, “Rapidly deployable network for tactical applications:
Aerial base station with opportunistic links for unattended and tem-
porary events absolute example,” in Military Communications Confer-
ence, MILCOM 2013-2013 IEEE. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1116–1120.
[62] J. Lyu, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “UAV-aided offloading for cellular
hotspot,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 17,
no. 6, pp. 3988–4001, June 2018.
[63] “AT&T detail network testing of drones in football stadiums,” available
online: https://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/09/att-detail-network-
testing-of-drones-in-football-stadiums.html.
[64] K. Gomez, A. Hourani, L. Goratti, R. Riggio, S. Kandeepan, and I. Bu-
caille, “Capacity evaluation of aerial LTE base-stations for public safety
communications,” in Proc. IEEE European Conference on Networks
and Communications (EuCNC), June 2015.
[65] G. Baldini, S. Karanasios, D. Allen, and F. Vergari, “Survey of wireless
communication technologies for public safety,” IEEE Communications
Surveys Tutorials, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 619–641, Second 2014.
[66] A. Merwaday and I. Guvenc, “UAV assisted heterogeneous networks
for public safety communications,” in Proc. of IEEE Wireless Commu-
nications and Networking Conference Workshops (WCNCW), March
2015.
[67] A. Orsino, A. Ometov, G. Fodor, D. Moltchanov, L. Militano, S. An-
dreev, O. N. Yilmaz, T. Tirronen, J. Torsner, G. Araniti et al., “Effects
of heterogeneous mobility on D2D-and drone-assisted mission-critical
MTC in 5G,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 2, pp.
79–87, 2017.
[68] Y. H. Nam, B. L. Ng, K. Sayana, Y. Li, J. Zhang, Y. Kim, and J. Lee,
“Full-dimension MIMO (FD-MIMO) for next generation cellular tech-
nology,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 172–179,
June 2013.
[69] 3GPP, “Study on elevation beamforming/full-dimension (FD) MIMO
for LTE,” TR 36.897, May 2017.
[70] W. Lee, S.-R. Lee, H.-B. Kong, and I. Lee, “3D beamforming designs
for single user MISO systems,” in Proc. of IEEE Global Communica-
tions Conference (GLOBECOM), Atlanta, GA, USA, Dec. 2013.
[71] Y.-H. Nam, M. S. Rahman, Y. Li, G. Xu, E. Onggosanusi, J. Zhang,
and J.-Y. Seol, “Full dimension MIMO for LTE-advanced and 5G,”
in Proc. of Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA), San
Diego, CA, USA, Feb. 2015.
[72] M. Shafi, M. Zhang, P. J. Smith, A. L. Moustakas, and A. F. Molisch,
“The impact of elevation angle on MIMO capacity,” in Proc. of IEEE
International Conference on Communications, vol. 9, Istanbul, Turkey,
June 2006.
[73] X. Cheng, B. Yu, L. Yang, J. Zhang, G. Liu, Y. Wu, and L. Wan,
“Communicating in the real world: 3D MIMO,” IEEE Wireless Com-
munications magazine, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 136–144, 2014.
[74] Y. Li, X. Ji, D. Liang, and Y. Li, “Dynamic beamforming for three-
dimensional MIMO technique in LTE-advanced networks,” Interna-
tional Journal of Antennas and Propagation, vol. 2013, 2013.
[75] 3GPP, “Enhanced LTE support for aerial vehicles,” TR 36.777, May
2017.
[76] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Communications
and control for wireless drone-based antenna array,” IEEE Transactions
on Communications, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 820–834, Jan. 2019.
[77] 3GPP, “Study on nr to support non-terrestrial networks,” TR 38.811,
Jan. 2018.
[78] N. Rupasinghe, Y. Yapici, I. Guvenc, and Y. Kakishima, “Non-
orthogonal multiple access for mmWave drones with multi-antenna
transmission,” available online: arxiv.org/abs/1711.10050, 2017.
[79] E. Torkildson, H. Zhang, and U. Madhow, “Channel modeling for mil-
limeter wave MIMO,” in Proc. of Information Theory and Applications
Workshop (ITA), 2010. IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–8.
[80] J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, and M. Palaniswami, “Internet of
Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions,”
Future generation computer systems, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1645–1660,
2013.
[81] Z. Dawy, W. Saad, A. Ghosh, J. G. Andrews, and E. Yaacoub, “To-
ward massive machine type cellular communications,” IEEE Wireless
Communications, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 120–128, Feb. 2017.
[82] S.-Y. Lien, K.-C. Chen, and Y. Lin, “Toward ubiquitous massive
accesses in 3gpp machine-to-machine communications,” IEEECommu-
nications Magazine, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 66–74, April. 2011.
[83] Y. Pang, Y. Zhang, Y. Gu, M. Pan, Z. Han, and P. Li, “Efficient data
collection for wireless rechargeable sensor clusters in harsh terrains
using UAVs,” in Proc. of IEEE Global Communications Conference
(GLOBECOM), Austin, TX, USA, Dec. 2014.
[84] M. N. Soorki, M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. H. Manshaei, and H. Saidi,
“Resource allocation for machine-to-machine communications with un-
manned aerial vehicles,” in IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps),
Dec. 2016.
[85] J. Qiao, Y. He, and S. Shen, “Proactive caching for mobile video
streaming in millimeter wave 5G networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 7187–7198, Oct. 2016.
 [86] T. X. Tran and D. Pompili, “Octopus: A cooperative hierarchical
caching strategy for cloud radio access networks,” in Proc. of IEEE
International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Systems
(MASS), Brasilia, Brazil, Oct. 2016, pp. 154–162.
[87] Y. Guo, L. Duan, and R. Zhang, “Cooperative local caching under het-
erogeneous file preferences,” IEEE Transactions on Communications,
vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 444–457, Jan. 2017.
[88] E. Bastug, M. Bennis, M. Kountouris, and M. Debbah, “Cache-enabled
small cell networks: Modeling and tradeoffs,” EURASIP J. Wireless
Commun. Netw.,Special Issue Tech. Adv. Design Deployment Future
Heterogeneous Netw., vol. 2015, no. 1, Feb 2015.
[89] Z. Ye, C. Pan, H. Zhu, and J. Wang, “Tradeoff caching strategy
of outage probability and fronthaul usage in Cloud-RAN,” available
online: arxiv.org/abs/1611.02660, Nov. 2016.
[90] M. Chen, M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, C. Yin, M. Debbah, and C. S. Hong,
“Caching in the sky: Proactive deployment of cache-enabled unmanned
aerial vehicles for optimized quality-of-experience,” IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1046–1061, May
2017.
[91] H. Wang, G. Ding, F. Gao, J. Chen, J. Wang, and L. Wang, “Power con-
trol in UAV-supported ultra dense networks: Communications, caching,
and energy transfer,” available online: arxiv.org/abs/1712.05004, 2017.
[92] R. Amer, W. Saad, H. ElSawy, M. Butt, and N. Marchetti, “Caching to
the sky: Performance analysis of cache-assisted CoMP for cellular-
connected UAVs,” in Proc. of IEEE Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference (WCNC), Wireless Networks Track, Marrakech,
Morocco,, 2019.
[93] D. Bamburry, “Drones: Designed for product delivery,” Design Man-
agement Review, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 40–48, 2015.
[94] M. Mozaffari, A. T. Z. Kasgari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah,
“Beyond 5G with UAVs: Foundations of a 3D wireless cellular net-
work,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 18, no. 1,
pp. 357–372, Jan. 2019.
[95] N. Bhushan, J. Li, D. Malladi, R. Gilmore, D. Brenner, A. Damn-
janovic, R. T. Sukhavasi, C. Patel, and S. Geirhofer, “Network den-
sification: the dominant theme for wireless evolution into 5G,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 82–89, Feb. 2014.
[96] X. Ge, S. Tu, G. Mao, C. X. Wang, and T. Han, “5G ultra-dense cellular
networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 72–79,
Feb. 2016.
[97] Z. Gao, L. Dai, D. Mi, Z. Wang, M. A. Imran, and M. Z. Shakir,
“Mmwave massive-MIMO-based wireless backhaul for the 5G ultra-
dense network,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 22, no. 5, pp.
13–21, Oct. 2015.
[98] U. Siddique, H. Tabassum, E. Hossain, and D. I. Kim, “Wireless
backhauling of 5G small cells: challenges and solution approaches,”
IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 22–31, Oct. 2015.
[99] U. Challita and W. Saad, “Network formation in the Sky: Unmanned
aerial vehicles for multi-hop wireless backhauling,” in Proc. of IEEE
Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), Singapore,
Dec. 2017.
[100] A. Ferdowsi, W. Saad, and N. B. Mandayam, “Colonel Blotto game
for secure state estimation in interdependent critical infrastructure,”
available online: arxiv.org/abs/1709.09768, 2017.
[101] J. Chen, U. Yatnalli, and D. Gesbert, “Learning radio maps for UAV-
aided wireless networks: A segmented regression approach,” in Proc.
of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Paris,
France, May 2017.
[102] A. Zajić, Mobile-to-mobile wireless channels. Artech House, 2012.
[103] Y. Zheng, Y. Wang, and F. Meng, “Modeling and simulation of pathloss
and fading for air-ground link of HAPs within a network simulator,” in
Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed
Computing and Knowledge Discovery (CyberC), Beijing, China, Oct.
2013.
[104] J. Holis and P. Pechac, “Elevation dependent shadowing model for
mobile communications via high altitude platforms in built-up areas,”
IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 56, no. 4, pp.
1078–1084, April 2008.
[105] Z. Yun and M. F. Iskander, “Ray tracing for radio propagation model-
ing: principles and applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 1089–1100,
2015.
[106] D. W. Matolak, “Air-ground channels amp; models: Comprehensive
review and considerations for unmanned aircraft systems,” in Proc. of
IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, Mar. 2012.
[107] D. W. Matolak and R. Sun, “Airground channel characterization for
unmanned aircraft systemspart i: Methods, measurements, and models
for over-water settings,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology,
vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 26–44, Jan. 2017.
[108] Q. Feng, E. K. Tameh, A. R. Nix, and J. McGeehan, “Modelling
the likelihood of line-of-sight for air-to-ground radio propagation in
urban environments,” in Proc. of IEEE Global Telecommunications
Conference (GLOBECOM), San Diego, CA, USA, Nov. 2006.
[109] K. Daniel, M. Putzke, B. Dusza, and C. Wietfeld, “Three dimensional
channel characterization for low altitude aerial vehicles,” in Proc. of
IEEE International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems,
Sep. 2010, pp. 756–760.
[110] E. Yanmaz, R. Kuschnig, and C. Bettstetter, “Channel measurements
over 802.11a-based UAV-to-ground links,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM
Workshops (GC Wkshps), Dec. 2011.
[111] K. Sasloglou, I. A. Glover, V. Gazis, P. Kikiras, K. Mathioudakis,
and I. Andonovic, “Empirical channel models for optimized com-
munications in a network of unmanned ground vehicles,” in Proc.
IEEE International Symposium on Signal Processing and Information
Technology, Dec. 2013.
[112] E. Yanmaz, R. Kuschnig, and C. Bettstetter, “Achieving air-ground
communications in 802.11 networks with three-dimensional aerial
mobility,” in Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM, Turin, Italy, April 2013.
[113] E. Kalantari, H. Yanikomeroglu, and A. Yongacoglu, “On the number
and 3D placement of drone base stations in wireless cellular networks,”
in Proc. of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, 2016.
[114] H. Shakhatreh, A. Khreishah, J. Chakareski, H. B. Salameh, and
I. Khalil, “On the continuous coverage problem for a swarm of UAVs,”
in Proc. of IEEE 37th Sarnoff Symposium, Sep. 2016, pp. 130–135.
[115] M. M. Azari, F. Rosas, K. C. Chen, and S. Pollin, “Joint sum-rate
and power gain analysis of an aerial base station,” in Proc. of IEEE
GLOBECOM Workshops, Dec. 2016.
[116] A. M. Hayajneh, S. A. R. Zaidi, D. C. McLernon, and M. Ghogho,
“Optimal dimensioning and performance analysis of drone-based wire-
less communications,” in Proc. of IEEE GLOBECOM Workshops, Dec.
2016.
[117] S. Jia and Z. Lin, “Modeling unmanned aerial vehicles base station in
ground-to-air cooperative networks,” IET Communications, 2017.
[118] ITU-R, “Rec. p.1410-2 propagation data and prediction methods for
the design of terrestrial broadband millimetric radio access systems,”
Series, Radiowave propagation, 2003.
[119] J. Kosmerl and A. Vilhar, “Base stations placement optimization in
wireless networks for emergency communications,” in Proc. of IEEE
International Conference on Communications (ICC), Sydney, Australia,
June. 2014.
[120] E. Kalantari, M. Z. Shakir, H. Yanikomeroglu, and A. Yongacoglu,
“Backhaul-aware robust 3D drone placement in 5G+ wireless net-
works,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Communications
Workshops (ICC Workshops), May 2017, pp. 109–114.
[121] W. Saad, Z. Han, T. Başar, M. Debbah, and A. Hjørungnes, “A
selfish approach to coalition formation among unmanned air vehicles in
wireless networks,” in Proc. of the International Conference on Game
Theory for Networks (GameNets), 2009, pp. 259–267.
[122] K. Daniel and C. Wietfeld, “Using public network infrastructures for
UAV remote sensing in civilian security operations,” DTIC Document,
Tech. Rep., Mar. 2011.
[123] P. Zhan, K. Yu, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Wireless relay communica-
tions using an unmanned aerial vehicle,” in Proc. IEEE 7th Workshop
on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications, Cannes,
France, July 2006.
[124] E. P. De Freitas, T. Heimfarth, I. F. Netto, C. E. Lino, C. E. Pereira,
A. M. Ferreira, F. R. Wagner, and T. Larsson, “UAV relay network
to support wsn connectivity,” in Proc. of International Congress on
Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems and Workshops
(ICUMT). IEEE, 2010, pp. 309–314.
[125] D. Orfanus, E. P. de Freitas, and F. Eliassen, “Self-organization
as a supporting paradigm for military UAV relay networks,” IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 804–807, 2016.
[126] Z. Gáspár and T. Tarnai, “Upper bound of density for packing of equal
circles in special domains in the plane,” Periodica Polytechnica. Civil
Engineering, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 13, 2000.
[127] K. Doğançay, “UAV path planning for passive emitter localization,”
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 48, no. 2,
pp. 1150–1166, 2012.
[128] A. Rucco, A. P. Aguiar, and J. Hauser, “Trajectory optimization for
constrained UAVs: A virtual target vehicle approach,” in Proc. IEEE
International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), June
2015.
[129] J. S. Bellingham, M. Tillerson, M. Alighanbari, and J. P. How, “Co-
operative path planning for multiple UAVs in dynamic and uncertain
environments,” in Proc. IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
Dec. 2002.
[130] J. How, Y. Kuwata, and E. King, “Flight demonstrations of cooperative
control for UAV teams,” in AIAA 3rd” Unmanned Unlimited” Technical
Conference, Workshop and Exhibit, 2004, p. 6490.
[131] J. Tisdale, Z. Kim, and J. K. Hedrick, “Autonomous UAV path planning
and estimation,” IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine, vol. 16, no. 2,
pp. 35–42, June 2009.
[132] P. Chandler, S. Rasmussen, and M. Pachter, “UAV cooperative path
planning,” in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and
Exhibit, 2000, p. 4370.
[133] F. Jiang and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Optimization of UAV heading
for the ground-to-air uplink,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 993–1005, June 2012.
[134] Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Throughput maximization for UAV-
enabled mobile relaying systems,” IEEE Transactions on Communica-
tions, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 4983–4996, Dec. 2016.
[135] C. D. Franco and G. Buttazzo, “Energy-aware coverage path planning
of UAVs,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Autonomous
Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC), Vila Real, Portugal, April
2015, pp. 111–117.
[136] E. I. Grøtli and T. A. Johansen, “Path planning for UAVs under
communication constraints using splat! and milp,” Journal of Intelligent
& Robotic Systems, vol. 65, no. 1-4, pp. 265–282, 2012.
[137] J. Tisdale, Z. Kim, and J. K. Hedrick, “Autonomous UAV path planning
and estimation,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 16, no. 2,
pp. 35–42, 2009.
[138] Z. Han, A. L. Swindlehurst, and K. Liu, “Optimization of MANET
connectivity via smart deployment/movement of unmanned air vehi-
cles,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 58, no. 7, pp.
3533–3546, Dec. 2009.
[139] M. Mozaffari, A. Broumandan, K. O’Keefe, and G. Lachapelle, “Weak
GPS signal acquisition using antenna diversity,” Navigation, vol. 62,
no. 3, pp. 205–218, 2015.
[140] 3GPP, “Study on RAN improvements for machine type communica-
tion,” TR 37.868, Sept. 2011.
[141] P. Sudheesh, M. Mozaffari, M. Magarini, W. Saad, and P. Muthuchi-
dambaranathan, “Sum-rate analysis for high altitude platform (HAP)
drones with tethered balloon relay,” IEEE Communications Letters,
vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1240–1243, 2018.
[142] A. I. Alshbatat and L. Dong, “Performance analysis of mobile ad
hoc unmanned aerial vehicle communication networks with directional
antennas,” International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 2010,
2011.
[143] W. Guo, C. Devine, and S. Wang, “Performance analysis of micro
unmanned airborne communication relays for cellular networks,” in
Proc. of IEEE International Symposium on Communication Systems,
Networks & Digital Signal Processing (CSNDSP), Manchester, UK,
July 2014, pp. 658–663.
[144] P. Zhan, K. Yu, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Wireless relay communica-
tions with unmanned aerial vehicles: Performance and optimization,”
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 47, no. 3,
pp. 2068–2085, July 2011.
[145] V. V. Chetlur and H. S. Dhillon, “Downlink coverage analysis for
a finite 3-D wireless network of unmanned aerial vehicles,” IEEE
Transactions on Communications, vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 4543–4558, Oct.
2017.
[146] C. Zhang and W. Zhang, “Spectrum sharing for drone networks,” IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 136–
144, Jan. 2017.
[147] S. Mumtaz, S. Huq, K. Mohammed, A. Radwan, J. Rodriguez, and
R. L. Aguiar, “Energy efficient interference-aware resource allocation
in LTE-D2D communication,” in Proc. of IEEE International Confer-
ence on Communications (ICC), Sydney, Australia, June. 2014.
[148] M. Haenggi, Stochastic geometry for wireless networks. Cambridge
University Press, 2012.
[149] N. Lee, X. Lin, J. G. Andrews, and R. Heath, “Power control for D2D
underlaid cellular networks: Modeling, algorithms, and analysis,” IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–13,
Feb. 2015.
[150] X. Xu, W. Saad, X. Zhang, X. Xu, and S. Zhou, “Joint deployment of
small cells and wireless backhaul links in next-generation networks,”
IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 2250–2253, Dec.
2015.
[151] J. Horwath, N. Perlot, M. Knapek, and F. Moll, “Experimental veri-
fication of optical backhaul links for high-altitude platform networks:
Atmospheric turbulence and downlink availability,” International Jour-
nal of Satellite Communications and Networking, vol. 25, no. 5, pp.
501–528, 2007.
[152] F. Fidler, M. Knapek, J. Horwath, and W. R. Leeb, “Optical commu-
nications for high-altitude platforms,” IEEE Journal of selected topics
in quantum electronics, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1058–1070, 2010.
[153] M. Alzenad, M. Z. Shakir, H. Yanikomeroglu, and M. Alouini, “FSO-
based vertical backhaul/fronthaul framework for 5G+ wireless net-
works,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 218–224,
Jan. 2018.
[154] V. Sharma, M. Bennis, and R. Kumar, “UAV-assisted heterogeneous
networks for capacity enhancement,” IEEE Communications Letters,
vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1207–1210, June 2016.
[155] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Optimal transport
theory for power-efficient deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles,” in
Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC),
May 2016.
[156] M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Optimal transport
theory for cell association in UAV-enabled cellular networks,” IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 2053–2056, Sep. 2017.
[157] F. Lagum, I. Bor-Yaliniz, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Strategic densifica-
tion with UAV-BSs in cellular networks,” IEEE Wireless Communica-
tions Letters, Early access, 2017.
[158] B. Galkin, J. Kibiłda, and L. A. DaSilva, “Backhaul for low-altitude
UAVs in urban environments,” May 2018.
[159] A. Taleb Zadeh Kasgari, W. Saad, and M. Debbah, “Brain-aware
wireless networks: Learning and resource management,” in Proc. of
IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific
Grove, CA, USA, Nov. 2017.
[160] A. Taleb Zadeh Kasgari and W. Saad, “Stochastic optimization and
control framework for 5G network slicing with effective isolation,”
in Proc. of Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems
(CISS), Princeton, USA, Mar. 2018.
[161] F. Pantisano, M. Bennis, W. Saad, and M. Debbah, “Spectrum leasing
as an incentive towards uplink macrocell and femtocell cooperation,”
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 30, no. 3,
pp. 617–630, April 2012.
[162] B. Uragun, “Energy efficiency for unmanned aerial vehicles,” in Proc.
of IEEE 10th International Conference on Machine Learning and
Applications and Workshops (ICMLA), vol. 2, Honolulu, HI, USA, Dec.
2011, pp. 316–320.
[163] Y. Zeng and R. Zhang, “Energy-efficient UAV communication with tra-
jectory optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 3747–3760, June 2017.
[164] T. X. Tran, A. Hajisami, and D. Pompili, “Cooperative hierarchical
caching in 5G cloud radio access networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 31,
no. 4, pp. 35–41, July 2017.
[165] D. Zorbas, T. Razafindralambo, F. Guerriero et al., “Energy efficient
mobile target tracking using flying drones,” Procedia Computer Sci-
ence, vol. 19, pp. 80–87, June. 2013.
[166] S. R. Anton and D. J. Inman, “Performance modeling of unmanned
aerial vehicles with on-board energy harvesting,” in SPIE Smart
Structures and Materials+ Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Mon-
itoring. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2011, pp.
79 771H–79 771H.
[167] J. Lyu, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Cyclical multiple access in UAV-
aided communications: A throughput-delay tradeoff,” available online:
arxiv.org/abs/1608.03180, 2016.
[168] M. S. Sharawi, D. N. Aloi, O. Rawashdeh et al., “Design and
implementation of embedded printed antenna arrays in small UAV wing
structures,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 58,
no. 8, pp. 2531–2538, 2010.
[169] E. T. Ceran, T. Erkilic, E. Uysal-Biyikoglu, T. Girici, and K. Leblebi-
cioglu, “Optimal energy allocation policies for a high altitude flying
wireless access point,” Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications
Technologies, vol. 28, no. 4, 2017.
[170] M. Chen, W. Saad, and C. Yin, “Liquid state machine learning for
resource allocation in a network of cache-enabled LTE-U UAVs,” in
Proc. of Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Singa-
pore, Dec. 2017.
[171] Y. Zeng, J. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Energy minimization for wire-
less communication with rotary-wing UAV,” available online:
arxiv.org/abs/1804.02238, 2018.
[172] M. Chen, W. Saad, and C. Yin, “Virtual reality over wireless networks:
quality-of-service model and learning-based resource management,”
available online: arxiv.org/abs/1703.04209, 2017.
[173] J. Chakareski, “Aerial UAV-IoT sensing for ubiquitous immersive com-
munication and virtual human teleportation,” in 2017 IEEE Conference
on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), May
2017, pp. 718–723.
[174] M. Chen, W. Saad, and C. Yin, “Echo state learning for wireless
virtual reality resource allocation in UAV-enabled LTE-U networks,” in
Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC),
Kansas city, USA, May 2018.
[175] H. Zhang, W. Ma, W. Li, W. Zheng, X. Wen, and C. Jiang, “Signalling
cost evaluation of handover management schemes in lte-advanced
femtocell,” in Proc. of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC
Spring), May 2011.
[176] G. Gódor, Z. Jakó, Á. Knapp, and S. Imre, “A survey of handover man-
agement in LTE-based multi-tier femtocell networks: Requirements,
challenges and solutions,” Computer Networks, vol. 76, pp. 17–41,
2015.
[177] R. Arshad, H. Elsawy, S. Sorour, T. Y. Al-Naffouri, and M. Alouini,
“Handover management in 5G and beyond: A topology aware skipping
approach,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 9073–9081, 2016.
[178] M. M. Azari, F. Rosas, A. Chiumento, and S. Pollin, “Coexistence
of terrestrial and aerial users in cellular networks,” in Proc. of IEEE
Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM) Workshops,
Singapore, Dec. 2017.
[179] M. M. Azari, F. Rosas, and S. Pollin, “Reshaping cellular networks
for the sky: The major factors and feasibility,” available online:
arxiv.org/abs/1710.11404, 2017.
[180] X. Lin, V. Yajnanarayana, S. D. Muruganathan, S. Gao, H. As-
plund, H.-L. Maattanen, S. Euler, Y.-P. E. Wang et al., “The sky is
not the limit: LTE for unmanned aerial vehicles,” available online:
arxiv.org/abs/1707.07534, 2017.
[181] U. Challita, W. Saad, and C. Bettstetter, “Cellular-connected UAVs over
5G: Deep reinforcement learning for interference management,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, accepted and to appear,
2019.
[182] A. Garcia-Rodriguez, G. Geraci, D. López-Pérez, L. G. Gior-
dano, M. Ding, and E. Björnson, “The essential guide to realiz-
ing 5G-connected UAVs with massive MIMO,” available online:
arxiv.org/abs/1805.05654, 2018.
[183] O. Semiari, W. Saad, S. Valentin, M. Bennis, and B. Maham, “Matching
theory for priority-based cell association in the downlink of wireless
small cell networks,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on
Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), May 2014, pp.
444–448.
[184] F. Pantisano, M. Bennis, W. Saad, M. Debbah, and M. Latva-aho,
“Interference alignment for cooperative femtocell networks: A game-
theoretic approach,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 12,
no. 11, pp. 2233–2246, Nov. 2013.
[185] N. Zhao, F. Cheng, F. R. Yu, J. Tang, Y. Chen, G. Gui, and H. Sari,
“Caching uav assisted secure transmission in hyper-dense networks
based on interference alignment,” IEEE Transactions on Communica-
tions, Early access, 2018.
[186] Q. Feng, J. McGeehan, E. K. Tameh, and A. R. Nix, “Path loss
models for air-to-ground radio channels in urban environments,” in
Proc. of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC), Melbourne,
Vic, Australia, May 2006.
[187] K. Daniel, M. Putzke, B. Dusza, and C. Wietfeld, “Three dimensional
channel characterization for low altitude aerial vehicles,” in Proc. of
IEEE International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems
(ISWCS),, York, UK, Sep. 2010.
[188] P. J. Vincent, M. Tummala, and J. McEachen, “An energy-efficient
approach for information transfer from distributed wireless sensor
systems,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on System of
Systems Engineering (IEEE/SMC). IEEE, 2006, pp. 6–pp.
[189] H. Wang, G. Ren, J. Chen, G. Ding, and Y. Yang, “Unmanned aerial
vehicle-aided communications: Joint transmit power and trajectory
optimization,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, Early access,
2018.
[190] M. Peng, Y. Sun, X. Li, Z. Mao, and C. Wang, “Recent advances in
cloud radio access networks: System architectures, key techniques, and
open issues,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 3,
pp. 2282–2308, thirdquarter 2016.
[191] A. V. Fiacco and G. P. McCormick, Nonlinear programming: sequential
unconstrained minimization techniques. Siam, 1990, vol. 4.
[192] C. Villani, Topics in optimal transportation. American Mathematical
Soc., 2003, no. 58.
[193] F. Baccelli and B. Błaszczyszyn, “Stochastic geometry and wireless
networks: Volume II applications,” Foundations and Trends in Net-
working, vol. 4, no. 1–2, pp. 1–312, 2010.
[194] M. Chen, U. Challita, W. Saad, C. Yin, and M. Debbah, “Machine
learning for wireless networks with artificial intelligence: A tutorial on
neural networks,” available online: arxiv.org/abs/1710.02913, 2017.
[195] U. Challita, A. Ferdowsi, M. Chen, and W. Saad, “Machine learning for
wireless connectivity and security of cellular-connected UAVs,” IEEE
Wireless Communications Magazine, Special Issue on Integrating UAVs
into 5G and Beyond, to appear, 2018.
[196] Z. Han, D. Niyato, W. Saad, T. Başar, and A. Hjørungnes, Game
theory in wireless and communication networks: theory, models, and
applications. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[197] G. Bacci, S. Lasaulce, W. Saad, and L. Sanguinetti, “Game theory
for networks: A tutorial on game-theoretic tools for emerging signal
processing applications,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 33,
no. 1, pp. 94–119, 2016.
[198] K. Hamidouche, W. Saad, and M. Debbah, “A multi-game framework
for harmonized LTE-U and WiFi coexistence over unlicensed bands,”
IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 62–69, 2016.
[199] A. Ferdowsi, A. Sanjab, W. Saad, and T. Başar, “Generalized Colonel
Blotto game,” in Proc. IEEE American Control Conference, Milwau-
kee, WI, USA, June 2018.
[200] T. Başar and G. J. Olsder, Dynamic noncooperative game theory.
Siam, 1999, vol. 23.
[201] J. Apaloo, Advances in Dynamic and Mean Field Games: Theory,
Applications, and Numerical Methods. Birkhauser, 2018.
[202] S. Samarakoon, M. Bennis, W. Saad, M. Debbah, and M. Latva-Aho,
“Ultra dense small cell networks: Turning density into energy effi-
ciency,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34,
no. 5, pp. 1267–1280, 2016.
[203] K. Hamidouche, W. Saad, M. Debbah, and H. V. Poor, “Mean-field
games for distributed caching in ultra-dense small cell networks,” in
Proc. IEEE American Control Conference (ACC), Boston, MA, USA,
July 2016, pp. 4699–4704.
[204] W. Saad, Z. Han, M. Debbah, A. Hjørungnes, and T. Başar, “Coalitional
game theory for communication networks,” IEEE Signal Processing
Magazine, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 77–97, Sep. 2009.
[205] W. Saad, Z. Han, M. Debbah, and A. Hjørungnes, “A distributed
coalition formation framework for fair user cooperation in wireless
networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 8,
no. 9, pp. 4580–4593, Sep. 2009.
[206] W. Saad, Z. Han, M. Debbah, A. Hjørungnes, and T. Başar, “Coalitional
games for distributed collaborative spectrum sensing in cognitive radio
networks,” in Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Computer
Communications (INFOCOM), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April 2009, pp.
2114–2122.
[207] W. Saad, Z. Han, T. Başar, M. Debbah, and A. Hjørungnes, “Hedonic
coalition formation for distributed task allocation among wireless
agents,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 10, no. 9, pp.
1327–1344, Sep. 2011.
[208] Y. Zhang, L. Song, W. Saad, Z. Dawy, and Z. Han, “Contract-based
incentive mechanisms for device-to-device communications in cellu-
lar networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2144–2155, 2015.
[209] Y. Gu, W. Saad, M. Bennis, M. Debbah, and Z. Han, “Matching theory
for future wireless networks: fundamentals and applications,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 52–59, 2015.